Montblanc Unveils 'e-Strap' Band Accessory With iOS Integration for Analog Luxury Watches

[Keirasplace]

How long? I don't know but I would guess probably as long as a $349 smartwatch. Probably longer since there is less to go wrong from a software perspective, since as you say, there's less functionality. Complex software hasn't been Apple's strong suit lately.

Plus the actual watch will most likely last far, far longer... and the chances of walking into McDonalds and seeing the kid on fries wearing the exact same watch as you is lessened greatly. With the watch, chances are probably going to be high that you're both sporting the same watch as the cheerleader at the local high school. Wait, that sounded elitist and it wasn't intended to be.

Poor you, the fry guy... That would hurt.... Guess it hurts now when that guy has a 128G Iphone 6+....

Mechanically, the band will be much much less durable than the watch, no question (anyone who has owned a band of any kind knows that) and that thing looks cheap too compared to the watch, good thing nobody ever sees the under side of your wrist... Not.

As for software, you got to be kidding, an underpowered cpu with very low resolution is at an advantage because is is so bad right now!!

Did I hear it correctly? That makes absolutely no sense! The inside of the Apple watch is modular (so in theory they can upgrade the hardware) and the CPU will be powerful enough for many more upgrades than this band! Let alone the high level of extra functionality it already has right out of the box.

So, the watch is not just for looks, but also a status symbol. Why not just buy a good quality fake, you can only figure if you handle it, at 1/10 the price if projecting status is all you need. Then you can put that $300 overpriced fitness band under it and get the best of both worlds ;-).

 

[kdarling]

Yeah somebody noticed, a sociologist I believe, some years ago, that when it's time for an invention to appear, several hundred, sometimes several thousand people all have the same idea for a new invention at the exact same time.

For sure. Look at automobiles, airplanes, home computers, and even apps. When the time is ripe for an idea, it'll occur to many people.

Right... The fact that band offers 1/10 of what the Apple watch offers is not going to threaten anything.

Well, that's a good question. Is this supposed to keep major watch wearers from switching to an Apple Watch? I'm not sure those people would do so anyway. Or is it just to give them the primary functions that most people desire... such as notifications.

If they could, they would... The problem is with current tech your band/watch would be more expensive than the Apple Watch and probably last less time (and be much much less durable too).

One of the lessons of history is that many things that seem out of reach now, become commonplace later on.

That said, I suspect that Apple is leaving the door open for functional bands. One of the few things we know for sure about the Apple Watch is that the band attachment is modular, allowing bands to be readily swapped. The possibilities of that innovation seem relatively limitless.

Yeah, I'm convinced that the way Apple did the band interchange mechanism, is so that a future version could have internal contacts, to allow smarter bands and/or bands with flexible batteries.

 

[iolinux333]

Wow kdarling I like that flexible battery in band idea a lot! It would make intelligent watches much thinner with higher capacity, and even allow instant battery swaps. Awesome!

 

[Armen]

Id be interested if they made one to match my Omega Planet Ocean watch.

 

[Keirasplace]

Wow kdarling I like that flexible battery in band idea a lot! It would make intelligent watches much thinner with higher capacity, and even allow instant battery swaps. Awesome!

Like no ones EVER thought of that before... Yes it would be cool, but there are many issues to deal with till this happens (because of current battery tech). Let alone the potential durability problems of doing so.

Right now, they could segment the battery in a series of smaller batteries and make it small enough that it would sort of be a band, but how do you make this thing last? And is it worth it? How much battery can you put once you've made sure the battery is well protected from wear?

 

[iolinux333]

Like no ones EVER thought of that before... Yes it would be cool, but there are many issues to deal with till this happens (because of current battery tech). Let alone the potential durability problems of doing so.

Right now, they could segment the battery in a series of smaller batteries and make it small enough that it would sort of be a band, but how do you make this thing last? And is it worth it? How much battery can you put once you've made sure the battery is well protected from wear?

Just make it out of cheap components. When it starts to leak or smoke just toss it in the trash and strap on a new one.

 

[gyang333]

Except that Montblanc is not Swiss nor would I consider their watches part of the Swiss watch industry. Get your facts right.

Montblanc was originally based out of Hamburg but their watch operations are indeed in Switzerand, in Le Locle (Montblanc) and Villeret (Minerva). They are owned by Richemont which is a Swiss luxury conglomerate. What part of any of this precludes them from being part of the Swiss watch industry?

 

[iolinux333]

pic for article all gone #

 

[Tech198]

$370.90 AUD...

That's one expensive strap.


(I can get a Chromebook cheaper than that.)

 

[Xtremjeepn]

Since that moment? No, not really. The first quartz digital watches appeared ......Yada Yada Yada

There comes a point when trying to summarize something and get to a point that expanding on every detail becomes wasteful and doesn't benefit anyone.

Going into massive detail about watches wasn't required. The point wasn't to write a history of time keeping and its evolution, just to offer some perspective.

The actual point seems to have been lost on you while you were striving to nitpick.

Even if we use the 70s as your benchmark, that is still a very very long time ago in the world of business and consumers wants and needs.

Which was he point. Not discussing all the details surrounding a specific style or cheap watch and a persona opinion on them.

Speculating that a watch that isn't even out yet is going to kill a watch industry only need as one basic examples of why.

S
I think most of us already understood the differences between people who buy watches mainly as jewelry and those who have more prosaic needs.

You may think that, but the comments of many of those here don't support that statement.

Just because you get it, doesn't mean others do. Which is why I offered some clarification. Posed in the shortest form I could make it as to not loose the interest of those that aren't really into watches.

You must consider your audience. Since the post was directed at those that don't seem to have an interest in high end watches, they also probably don't have much of an interest in endless detail on Quartz or other types of time keeping. Thus a quick and simple comment to make the point understandable was all that was required.

 

[wikiverse]

This is really really cool. Such a great idea. Add a smart watch to any watch you already have, and the location is perfect, holding your arm out to read it is so much easier and mkrw natural then turning your wrist over. This is game changing. Much more interesting than a notification device trying to be a watch. We have a notification device accessory added to your current watch.

I'm not sure that it's much easier to hold your arm up either way, but this does have one massive advantage over the apple watch, in that it is much more private.

The apple watch puts all your notifications and messages on display for the world (or everyone in a meeting) to see, this discreetly keeps them hidden under your wrist and you can check them and dismiss them much more discreetly.

 

[matteuk]

Montblanc solved a problem that Apple should have, in a way that apple would have.

 

[IJ Reilly]

There comes a point when trying to summarize something and get to a point that expanding on every detail becomes wasteful and doesn't benefit anyone.

The difference between what you said about the appearance of cheap digital timepieces and reality was something on the order of 50-60 years. Hardly a nitpick, though I think defensive fairly describes your response.

 

[Xtremjeepn]

The difference between what you said about the appearance of cheap digital timepieces and reality was something on the order of 50-60 years. Hardly a nitpick, though I think defensive fairly describes your response.

The point was that we have had the technology since 1927 to tell more accurate time. Which has made basic watches cheaper and cheaper and it still hasn't effected the high end watch industry.

The actual leap from Quartz clock to cheap Quartz watches isn't important. Since the post wasn't about those things but rather that the sheer accuracy or affordability of a watch isn't the point.

You seemed to miss that. Then writing a post attacking a minor point in a larger conversation. If you attack, you should expect a response. If you aim at a minor point that really isn't important to the larger conversation, then you are nitpicking;-)

None of the points you have made pertain at all to the topic at hand.

 

[Pistol Peto]

Yikes... totally inconsistent with the rest of their product line. It's like Ferrari coming out with a spare tire holder on the back of their car because everyone raved about Jeep doing it.

Panic at the disco!

 

[alexgowers]

They might sell a few hundred but I get the feeling the apple watch isn't going to affect these alternatives at all. It's more likely the exposure of the apple watch to the public will mean an increase in smart watch sales across the board.

I hate to be a downer on this idea but it's akin to a microsoft tablet/laptop idea. It doesn't do either job well and doesn't replace either a fitness band or watch, the exact things apple will replace with their watch design and the reason it'll sell.

 

[Keirasplace]

Montblanc solved a problem that Apple should have, in a way that apple would have.

Give me a break. That's what Steve Jobs would say... ;-).

----------

I'm not sure that it's much easier to hold your arm up either way, but this does have one massive advantage over the apple watch, in that it is much more private.

The apple watch puts all your notifications and messages on display for the world (or everyone in a meeting) to see, this discreetly keeps them hidden under your wrist and you can check them and dismiss them much more discreetly.

The watch face doesn't light up until you actually turn it towards yourself (you know, glances), leaving visible notifications on the watch all the time even when not looking at it would kill the battery (the screen is the biggest battery hog).

Filtering of notifications is a given, you could just set VIP notifications to go through and if you want even more privacy, only get haptic feedback of them. With an earpiece, you could probably then have a message play in your ear by tapping the screen (text-to-speach) without even turning your wrist around or looking at the watch! There's a load of possibilities here.

 

[kdarling]

... I like that flexible battery in band idea a lot! It would make intelligent watches much thinner with higher capacity, and even allow instant battery swaps. Awesome!

The reason I brought it up, was because Apple was filing patents about flexible battery bands a year or so ago.

E.g. Apple Patent Details Flexible Battery Shape for Future Devices - MacRumors July 2013

I suspect that Apple did a lot of R&D trying to come up with the kind of bracelet "iWatch" that everyone originally expected, but changed their mind for whatever reason, and went with a more standard watch Marc Newson design instead.

However, they could still use some of that R&D to expand the capabilities of this design.

 

[JCrz]

Good idea tho. About all the gizmo one needs on the wrist.

I know. Just like texting was all that people "needed" on phones.

----------

Hopefully this thing won't bend on gentle pressure like the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus do.

----------

Yikes... totally inconsistent with the rest of their product line. It's like Ferrari coming out with a spare tire holder on the back of their car because everyone raved about Jeep doing it.

Panic at the disco!

^^^ Buy this person a beer!

 

[IJ Reilly]

The point was that we have had the technology since 1927 to tell more accurate time. Which has made basic watches cheaper and cheaper and it still hasn't effected the high end watch industry.

The actual leap from Quartz clock to cheap Quartz watches isn't important. Since the post wasn't about those things but rather that the sheer accuracy or affordability of a watch isn't the point.

You seemed to miss that. Then writing a post attacking a minor point in a larger conversation. If you attack, you should expect a response. If you aim at a minor point that really isn't important to the larger conversation, then you are nitpicking;-)

None of the points you have made pertain at all to the topic at hand.

All of them pertain, and I did not miss anything. Before cheap accurate watches became available, the quality of the watch was a function of the price. You paid for higher quality, better movements, with more and higher priced jewels. Today, a higher price for a watch reflects only the fashion element, not the accuracy of the timepiece. Contrary to what you said, this is a relatively recent development.

 

[69Mustang]

Poor you, the fry guy... That would hurt.... Guess it hurts now when that guy has a 128G Iphone 6+....

Why would that hurt? I'm not an iPhone owner. You have me confused with my daughter.

Mechanically, the band will be much much less durable than the watch, no question (anyone who has owned a band of any kind knows that) and that thing looks cheap too compared to the watch, good thing nobody ever sees the under side of your wrist... Not.

You forgot to put "in my opinion" in your quote. You have no idea if the Montblanc band will be less durable than the watch. You just made that up. As far as any band goes, I have several watches with the original bands; some over 20 years old. As with the watch, it depends on the quality of the band. What does it matter if someone sees the underside of a wrist?

As for software, you got to be kidding, an underpowered cpu with very low resolution is at an advantage because it is so bad right now!!

Underpowered in relation to what? The functionality is limited to notifications. How powerful does the band need to be? The band isn't driving a Quad HD screen or utilizing pivot tables.

Did I hear it correctly? That makes absolutely no sense! The inside of the Apple watch is modular (so in theory they can upgrade the hardware) and the CPU will be powerful enough for many more upgrades than this band! Let alone the high level of extra functionality it already has right out of the box.

Please note carefully what I am stating. You're not stupid but this comment is really stupid, even for a theory. Apple is not going to upgrade the inside of your watch, or anything for that matter. That's not what they do. That's not what they've ever done. You will need to buy a new watch. Just like with everything else they make. You have no idea how many software upgrades will be available for the watch or the Montblanc band. Again, you're making up stuff. Please stop. If I was looking for all that high level of extra functionality, there are tons of smartwatches on the market that offer it. The band appeals to me because of its simplicity, not in spite of it.

So, the watch is not just for looks, but also a status symbol. Why not just buy a good quality fake, you can only figure if you handle it, at 1/10 the price if projecting status is all you need. Then you can put that $300 overpriced fitness band under it and get the best of both worlds ;-).

Why would I want to buy a fake watch? I have several mid-tier watches ($1K-$3K) and two higher-tier watches ($7K-$10). Spending $300 on the Montblanc band to add some smart notifications to those watches is getting the best of both worlds.

The watch, nor any other smartwatch, besides the LG Watch R, caught my interest. This band does. To be fair though, the fry cook at McDonalds could also get the band and we would share something similar. Uh oh, now I gotta rethink the band too.

 

[Keirasplace]

Why would that hurt? I'm not an iPhone owner. You have me confused with my daughter.



You forgot to put "in my opinion" in your quote. You have no idea if the Montblanc band will be less durable than the watch. You just made that up. As far as any band goes, I have several watches with the original bands; some over 20 years old. As with the watch, it depends on the quality of the band. What does it matter if someone sees the underside of a wrist?



Underpowered in relation to what? The functionality is limited to notifications. How powerful does the band need to be? The band isn't driving a Quad HD screen or utilizing pivot tables.



Please note carefully what I am stating. You're not stupid but this comment is really stupid, even for a theory. Apple is not going to upgrade the inside of your watch, or anything for that matter. That's not what they do. That's not what they've ever done. You will need to buy a new watch. Just like with everything else they make. You have no idea how many software upgrades will be available for the watch or the Montblanc band. Again, you're making up stuff. Please stop. If I was looking for all that high level of extra functionality, there are tons of smartwatches on the market that offer it. The band appeals to me because of its simplicity, not in spite of it.



Why would I want to buy a fake watch? I have several mid-tier watches ($1K-$3K) and two higher-tier watches ($7K-$10). Spending $300 on the Montblanc band to add some smart notifications to those watches is getting the best of both worlds.

The watch, nor any other smartwatch, besides the LG Watch R, caught my interest. This band does. To be fair though, the fry cook at McDonalds could also get the band and we would share something similar. Uh oh, now I gotta rethink the band too.

A Band, because of fatigue, wear, degradation and well, it is not a sturdy metal box which doesn't need to bend and strech, wouldn't last as long as the watch; hope I'm not shattering some kind of illusion about how physics works !

I wasn't making some grand declaration about Apple there, a band will be less durable. If they got a way to move the computer parts from band to band, then all is good.

That's why we change bands and don't merely throw away the whole watch ;-).

While I agree that in general Apple would want you to throw away / or give away instead of replacing internals. I'm betting that at least in the case of the most expensive watch, the inside will indeed be upgradeable a few years. Otherwise, the packaging of the SOC (S1) makes little sense.

Notice I didn't say that it was a certainty for all watches; though I wouldn't be that surprised if they offered a $250 update to the SOC for 2-3 years as a way to clearly differentiate themselves from every others. Beating them on price or cost of ownership by moving the goalpost of what that really means. This would promote yearly update cycles for something that normally has a longer update cycle.

For Apple, a $250 yearly update, its still a pretty big financial win since the most profitable part would undoubtedly be that small chip. Machining, assembling and distributing the rest would cost more. Anyway, we will see if they go full out or limit the upgrade to the top end.

 

[iolinux333]

Maybe if it has good battery life people can add it to their aWatch for when the aWatch battery goes dead.

 

[Alenore]

As for software, you got to be kidding, an underpowered cpu with very low resolution is at an advantage because is is so bad right now!!

Excuse me sir, you're starting to sound like an Android fanboy bashing the iPhone "underpowered cpu" "low resolution", ...

Did I hear it correctly? That makes absolutely no sense! The inside of the Apple watch is modular (so in theory they can upgrade the hardware) and the CPU will be powerful enough for many more upgrades than this band! Let alone the high level of extra functionality it already has right out of the box.

Judging from the past products updates from Apple, and considering they never mentionned upgradeability (which would be a pretty big selling point...), i wouldn't hold my breath to upgrade the inside of my watch...

Maybe if it has good battery life people can add it to their aWatch for when the aWatch battery goes dead.

Ah, if only the Apple watch didn't use à proprietary band format...

 

[D-Dave]

And they said the same thing about high-end film cameras and custom horse-drawn carriages at one time.

I can see the thought behind your analogies, but there is a decisive difference:
People already have Choices available that perform the basic function better then mechanical watches.
Any quartz clock is bound to be more accurate then a mechanical one.
Any digital watch lets you read the time more accurately then an analog one.
Some even have extra functionality like calculators build in....

My point is, people actively choose to use devices that perform their core functionality worse then much cheaper alternatives.
To me that is because I realy LIKE the way a well designed analog watch looks, i LIKE the fact that one of my watches is almost a hundred years old (my grandfathers first wrist watch) and is still very much useable (in fact with it's new strap it even looks stunning).
And last but not least, I LIKE wearing an analog watch because with all it's imperfections, it serves me as a reminder to wind down a little in this fast paced digital world. according to market trends there seem to be a lot of people who think the same way. (77% of watches sold today are mechanical!)

In addition to why I do not think analog watches are dead in the foreseeable future, here is why I am sceptical that apple's watch will be a game changer:
First, and most important: it is an iOS only accessory. In other words, the possible consumer base is already very limited.
Just as an example: Samsung managed to sell approximately 400,000 smartwatches in 2013 (they claim 800,000 but according to the vast majority of analysts that figure is massively exaggerated). In the same year they sold 300 million smartphones (as an indicator of the possible customer base) so for every 750 phones sold they managed to sell just one smartwatch...

Both smartwatches share some shortcomings (primarily batterylife) but I'll give the apple watch that it does look slightly better, so apple may be able to sell twice as much.

Gerneraly there seems to be the notion that apple customers have more available income so lets add another factor two for sales, just because "we can" (afford that accessory).

Plus apple usualy gets very good press and it's fans are very loyal...lets double that number again.

Personaly I would deduct a big chunk of customers who think a product that lets one send heartbeats and shiny self drwan pics to others belongs to pony riding 12 year old girls with pigtails, and is rather embaressing to wear as an adult...but that is just a sentiment that may be very specific to me...lets leave that out of the equation

So lets assume all this works out, apple would be able to sell 1 watch per 90 sold iphones (actualy 93.75 but lets round that down in apples favor)
Now lets see, the "possibel customer base" is 150 million (sales in 2013) so when we devide that by 90 we would get total sales of just under 1.7 million.

While that figure will clearly make apple the leader in the smartwatch segment, global wrist watch sales are around 1.2 billion total so that would equal 0.14% of global marketshare. Even considering the swiss watch market only (29.2 million sales with an average prize of 739$) that would be 5.82% (if all apple watch customers would otherwise buy a swiss watch, and would not do so afetr buying the apple watch)

Obviously those numbers are not scientific. They just serve to show why I think the apple watch will not be a game changer as the iphone was.
There is also a "technological" difference between the two products: all the tech that was used in the iphone was there...it "only" took steve jobs ambition and insight to combine those technologies into a game-changing package. For smartwatches that tech just isn't there yet...battery life that is worthwhile, a display that may be build in the top glass and while not in use will still let one see that beautiful analog watch, true added value that can not be gained from using just the phone and a watch (plus maybe a fitness band for work out)...

All in all I do not think that the apple watch will fail, but it will not be as big a deal as apple would like it to be and maybe even go the same way as apple tv and the mac mini and be more of a hobby to apple...