You probably don't know much about watches. Nobody except for a tiny minority wears waterproof watches.
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.
Chinese Model Hints at Fashion-Oriented Advertising Push for Apple Watch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You probably don't know much about watches. Nobody except for a tiny minority wears waterproof watches.
Are you sure about that? Most 10 dollar watches are OK to swim with and certainly all Rolex watches etc......
I live in Florida and nobody I know takes the watch of for swimming.
What you speak of is "water resistant" as distinct from "water proof".
$10 watches are "water resistant" which means splash proof and can handle a shower or shallow water swimming.
What they can't handle is "water pressure" once submerged in water the pressure can crack the casing.
Apple Watch Sport is water resistant and you will be able to swim with it, shower etc. The other models are splash proof only.
I think they recommend that you don't swim with it..... and considering that it's part marketed as sports watch/tracker I would consider that a fail.
Anyway, I'm sure by
Watch 3.0 they have it sorted out and then I will give it another look.I think they recommend that you don't swim with it..... and considering that it's part marketed as sports watch/tracker I would consider that a fail.
Anyway, I'm sure by
Sport model is water resistant up to 30 meters, so not a fail based on your creteria.
The other models, splash proof and as they are not sports model/fitness tracker, not a fail either.
So good to go.
Do you have a link to that? I had heard it wasn't something you could wear while swimming. I can't seem to find that info anywhere.
I must be really old then.
My fashion is what you call "archetype."
I stick with enduring, modern classics. Items I considered to be iconic; lasting several decades and never gone out of style.
They all reach a point where they become "archetype" or icons of their genres.
For example, watches, I wear an Omega Speedmaster Professional or Rolex Submariner.
For sunglasses, I wear a Persol 714.
For shoes, Clark desert boots. For jacket, Baracuta G9. My jeans are sta-prest levis. My shirts are British Sunspel.
Basically what Daniel Craig, Bradley Cooper, and Jason Statham wears but they all basically knocked-off Steve Mcqueen style from the 60s.
My entire house is furnished in the modern classics - Charles/Ray Eames.
Those designs never changed. A Rolex from 2014 has the same lineage and general shape from the one in 1954.
An Eames 670 has been unchanged for over 60 yrs.
This is why I am not the target audience of any "Fashion watches" including the Apple watch.
I doubt an Apple Watch design or any Apple design can go un-contested for 60 years like the examples I gave above.
Those are what you call "true" modern classics. That to me is fashion. Again, I'm probably too old.
nah.. just misinterpreting 'fashion' maybe?
fashion (industry) is way more trend/fad based.
Living in Santa Monica (next door to Beverly Hills), I see Gucci bags and Amani suits all the time. I consider their owners fashion conscious, even if they lack the hipster cred to know or care about what's de rigueur in 2014.
They same brands have vastly different reputations from country to country. In Europe, Mercedes was never considered a premium brand (the Mercedes logo is on many delivery trucks there), but in the US, Mercedes has cachet. I was once in Spain and was stunned to see a line of customers on a Friday night dressed up to dine at a Tony Roma's, which is taken about as seriously as Applebees here in the US. In China and many other countries, Apple is much more of an aspirational brand than they are here. I doubt we'll see the aWatch on the cover of the US version of Vogue any time soon.
You clearly know a lot more about fashion than I do, but your examples reinforce my point. The iPhone lineage has the same basic shape as the original (single home button, symmetrical top and bottom bezels). The aWatch has a minimalist design that's not likely to change over time except in thinness and UI software. Now, whether you like the design is another storythere's no reason you have to like itbut the overall shape is largely future proof.
I wouldn't argue with anyone that a digital watch of any kind, even one designed by Dieter Rams, is more archetypal than a mechanical watch, but that's the sort of archetype that I would classify as a skeuomorph: the form is the function itself. A mechanical watch is an accessory, like a cufflink, not a utility, like a smartphone, and serves a very different purpose for the consumer.
I think they recommend that you don't swim with it..... and considering that it's part marketed as sports watch/tracker I would consider that a fail.
Anyway, I'm sure by
Seriously, I swim 4-5h a week intensily, and I don't get swimming with anything on wrist at all even if the watch can do it. That would seriously mess my form. Having the water go in a steamlined way around the body is important in swimming.
Maybe If I swim slow, or are just having fun in water at the beach it would make sense, but I need my wrist with no restraint at all if I swim the multiple styles I do now.
If you look at a swimmer with good form in slow motion (go on youtube and watch), you'd see why swimming with a watch is a bad idea.
BTW, if its just to wear you watch on a boat even in a storm or at the beach, the sports watch is perfectly adequate for that.
Timeless designs are, by definition, fashion items that have become evergreen over time by market consensus, not some a priori aesthetic genius that known ahead of time. The Cube was just a timeless, in strictly aesthetic terms, as the MacBook Air, yet Apple continued to support the latter because economies of scale were more favorable to unibody products.
My point has nothing to do with knowing a single thing ahead of time. Objects that were never the least bit fashionable continue to be made the same way for decades because they've achieved a blend of form and function that is difficult to beat. For example, a Swiss Army knife.
The top loaded washer hasn't changed in 50+ years so I'm guessing it is a classic now. Things stay the same because they sell, simple as that. They find a market and the people selling them don'T see the point in modifying what works for most people. Sometimes, a variant comes out, but if it doesn't sell better, it either dies or is sold in parallel.
The Beige computer tower and its close variants dominated for 20 years and is only now being slowly phased out. Was it an epitome of style? No. So, the fact that some people buy status symbol watches with 60 year design mainly mean that the design as become a recognizable status symbol to the whole target market, not that it is inherently fantastic.
Rolexes are for me the ugliest watch design on earth, but people buy them still. People even buy knockoffs that have nothing of the fine internal workmanship (there are probably more knockoff in existence than real watches).
But that's a retrospective judgment. The Swiss Army Knife's blend of form and function is considered perfect in hindsight due to natural selection, just as the slate form factor for smartphones is obvious in retrospect despite the popularity of front-qwerty smartphones that preceded them.
Timelessness can only be judged respectively, by definition. Calling a new or recent design "timeless" would essentially be an oxymoron.
Your washer and beige computer tower analogy is flawed. They are designed for function like the automobile.
Rolex is successful because it is an archetype design. There has been divers watches before Rolex (Blancpain Fifty Fathom).
But the Submariner's design (in 1954) is so original it has been cloned countless times by and iterative designs have been done by many companies
(low and many more prestigious and more expensive than Rolex). That is why it is called the "Archetype diver"
Rolex up to the 80s have always been a "tool watch" company rather than a luxe brand. You could buy a Submariner in 1971 for $200.
It was favored by professionals; thus the term professional watch. This builds up provenance and lineage. It is indeed "inherently fantastic" due to it's
ruggedness and reliability. They are the only ones to use 904L steel and their triplock crown has been proven.
I understand you may find it ugly. That is probably due to the reaction to the "caricature" of Rolex. The diamond bezelled, garish models. They were never like that before. The tacked on diamonds to sports watches.
They were merely filling a need/void to aftermarket customization but the quintessential Rolex have always been their Stainless Steel professional models.
Their professional SS models of historic value are the ones that fetch the top dollars at auction and not the diamond, garish gold presidents.
Lets take another Archetype design. Clark's desert boots. There are hundreds of countless copies. The Church Ryder sells boots for $500 whereas the Clarks sells for $130.
Everyone has a knock-off derivative design. Banana Republic, J.Crew all sells a variation of the Clark Desert boots under their house name and they often sell it for much more.
The Clark's are not perfect (the soles) but they are original in design. Thus their popularity.
----------
I agree. Timelessness has to go through iterations and waves of fads/trends. Thus, only then can you truly call something timeless. If it can outlast cyclical trends, only then can it be called iconic, classic, timeless.
As I said earlier, my taste is archetype. They've gone through 60-80 years of fads.
Pass through the hippy 60s, disco bell bottom 70s, the new wave 80s, grunge 90s, zooming through the tastelessness of the millennial 2000s.
A Rolex Submariner and a Omega Speedmaster has already proven what the definition of archetype is.
And Panerai Luminors.
And the Patek Nautilus.
And the Porsche 911.
And John Lobb's boots and oxford shoes.
I agree with you.
Last edited: