Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Photos of Montblanc's Watch 'e-Strap' Show Low-Resolution Display, Bulky Fit

cambox said:
I'm taking a guess here... Not one on here owns a decent well crafted watch that costs over 4k? You know one that is actually hand made? Without a battery? If you have one you would realise that this concept is aimed at someone who wants the convenience of not holding your phone in your back pocket or shirt pocket but would like to see any notifications. This isn't designed to be an iwatch killer or replacement, its designed to compliment a crafted watch without the need to wear a brash battery operated piece of bling that you have to charge up every day.

Mac Rumours did a great bit of editing here by not telling you what its actually designed for and you all fell for it! Great click bait MR :)
Click to expand...

I own many watches, not exactly over $4K, but well-crafted none-the-less. Putting that much mass under your wrist just won't work. And who REALLY uses a tactical nylon NATO strap on a luxury timepiece? Sure, I have worn my Seiko and Tissot divers on a nylon strap, and the Omega Seamaster and Speedy Pros have a nice rubber strap, but more often than not the Mont Blanc wearer has it on leather/croc/ostrich/gator OR is using s nice stainless steel bracelet.

They may sell 5 of these.
 
filmantopia said:
Curious-- How does the Apple Watch appeal to you?
Click to expand...

It's causing a dilemma...

I love my Daytona, and have zero intention to replace it with any "smart" watch.

On the other hand, I am admittedly an Apple junkie... I've owned almost every iteration of iPhone and iPad, along with an iMac, MacBook Pro, etc., and have written software products for both platforms.

When the watch actually comes out I'll take a look at it, but unless I'm going to go total geek and wear a watch on each wrist, I probably won't buy one.
 
Col4bin said:
Yes but with iPhone, Apple was still competing in a relatively new smartphone tech market. The luxury timepiece market is far from computer tech and is very well established. As I stated in a previous post, there is certainly room for Apple to co-exist in this space and their market plan/business justifiation clearly confirms this. It'll be interesting to see how successfully they can penetrate this market.
Click to expand...

You keeps making this incorrect statement. Apple, in fact, entered the cellular phone market. A market that existed since 1983 (23 years at iPhone's release) and one that had a fairly high barrier to entry. It was considered a mature market with a few key players (RIM, Nokia, etc) producing everything from the most basic phones to what, at the time, were consider "smartphones". Apple introduced iPhone and the rest is history.

I think it is important to also consider that prior to Apples arrival in the cellular market the typical device usage was 90% calls and 10% other (being generous here). Fast forward to present day typical usage is probably 10% calls / 90% other. The other functions are now what defines a cell phone, it might more accurately be called a miniature computer that also does phone calls. Apple has changed the expectation and definition of what a cell phone is, in a few more years the term "smartphone" will likely cease to exist as non-smart phones will no longer be made. This is their play with Apple watch, within a few years when someone discuss a watch they will not be talking about a device that tells time, they will be referring to device they wear on their wrist that does all of the other functions.

Lets face it, an expensive watch purchaser buys a status symbol, justifies it by their "serendipitously" newly found appreciation for the mechanics, history, etc. of said symbol. Now feeling the prestige of being among the ranks of an exclusive club they spend inordinate amounts of time becoming a self-appointed connoisseur in the field. There is nothing inherently wrong with this behavior you see it with golf, wine, audiophiles, airplanes, cars. Interestingly enough, I can't remember the last time I met a person with a collection of horse drawn wagons. Though I have to say wagons were also a very mature market (since 1300 BC) when ford introduced the automobile in 1908.
 
fmaxwell said:
I dislike the demeaning term "Apple fan." I am a fan of good products and good customer support, not of a single company.

I have no desire to see other companies to be wiped out -- except for those companies that prey on uninformed consumers, selling them products which are poorly designed and/or constructed.

I predict that the Apple Watch will have a devastating effect on semi-luxury watchmakers, just as did the first wave of quartz movement watches from Japan. Someone who wants a $500 watch as a symbol that he/she is moving up the ladder of success may very well choose an Apple Watch. If I were CEO of a watchmaker operating in the same price window as an Apple Watch, I would be very concerned.

I doubt that there will be much immediate effect on Rolex, Omega, or Breitling because those firms are selling status symbols rather than an ability to tell time. It will be interesting to see whether people who buy an Apple Watch (or competing product) will be willing to give up that level of functionality as their incomes grow, moving them into the luxury watch demographic. Normally, moving to a luxury brand means getting better functionality, not worse. This could be a paradigm shift.
Click to expand...

Yes because a Ferrari F12 is more functional than a Fiat Punto and a Patek Nautilus is more functional than a Casio GShock. And a pair of Edward Greens more functional than some Reeboks
 
minisu1980 said:
You keeps making this incorrect statement. Apple, in fact, entered the cellular phone market. A market that existed since 1983 (23 years at iPhone's release) and one that had a fairly high barrier to entry. It was considered a mature market with a few key players (RIM, Nokia, etc) producing everything from the most basic phones to what, at the time, were consider "smartphones". Apple introduced iPhone and the rest is history.

I think it is important to also consider that prior to Apples arrival in the cellular market the typical device usage was 90% calls and 10% other (being generous here). Fast forward to present day typical usage is probably 10% calls / 90% other. The other functions are now what defines a cell phone, it might more accurately be called a miniature computer that also does phone calls. Apple has changed the expectation and definition of what a cell phone is, in a few more years the term "smartphone" will likely cease to exist as non-smart phones will no longer be made. This is their play with Apple watch, within a few years when someone discuss a watch they will not be talking about a device that tells time, they will be referring to device they wear on their wrist that does all of the other functions.

Lets face it, an expensive watch purchaser buys a status symbol, justifies it by their "serendipitously" newly found appreciation for the mechanics, history, etc. of said symbol. Now feeling the prestige of being among the ranks of an exclusive club they spend inordinate amounts of time becoming a self-appointed connoisseur in the field. There is nothing inherently wrong with this behavior you see it with golf, wine, audiophiles, airplanes, cars. Interestingly enough, I can't remember the last time I met a person with a collection of horse drawn wagons. Though I have to say wagons were also a very mature market (since 1300 BC) when ford introduced the automobile in 1908.
Click to expand...

The overall cellular market and smartphones in general are two very different things. Yes the celluar market has it roots in 1983, but as of 2007, smartphones were still only reasonably new and catching on with the mainstream consumer. Other than RIM BB cornering the buisness market, the door was wide open for Apple to enter and make a huge spalsh with the mainstream consumer. Apple of course did just that, carving out their very successful niche. Again, will be interesting to see how the Apple Watch can pentrate the luxury watch market. In my opinion, I say Apple will own the smart watch market and erode the Swiss watchmaker's lower price point offerings ($300-$600 range.)
 
CalWizrd said:
It's causing a dilemma...

I love my Daytona, and have zero intention to replace it with any "smart" watch.

On the other hand, I am admittedly an Apple junkie... I've owned almost every iteration of iPhone and iPad, along with an iMac, MacBook Pro, etc., and have written software products for both platforms.

When the watch actually comes out I'll take a look at it, but unless I'm going to go total geek and wear a watch on each wrist, I probably won't buy one.
Click to expand...

Haha I've been wondering how luxury watch wearers would handle this. Look out-- it's only going to get tougher with each generation. ;)
 
minisu1980 said:
Interestingly enough, I can't remember the last time I met a person with a collection of horse drawn wagons. Though I have to say wagons were also a very mature market (since 1300 BC) when ford introduced the automobile in 1908.
Click to expand...

This analogy makes no sense at all. Already 45 years ago digital watches possessed vastly superior functionality compared to luxury watches AND smartphones didn't exist at the time to compete with cheap watches. Why wasn't the luxury market obliterated then already?

I had a Casio watch at that time that could store phone numbers and could be used as a calculator. Casio and Seiko, the absolute market leaders in digital watches at the time, had the chance then to target the luxury market. It was at that time that your analogy would have worked. Still the luxury watch segment is thriving even now, and it will continue to do so, regardless of a few new smarter products with built in sensors, notifications and some gold slapped on top.

These analogies to other products make no sense. They in most cases show that the writer does not understand the market fully enough. This market needs to be analyzed on its own merit.
 
Last edited:
Everyone here forgets that watches are almost the only serious accessory/jewel a man can wear. Therefore it is pretty clear to me that most watches are chosen by customers depending on their shape and look&feel rather than functionality.

In my case for instance I don't - and will never - own square watches because I do not like them. Therefore such a solution is more appealing to me than the apple watch. Of course it looks bulky, but it is just the first iteration. In general I think that with a thinner display i would buy something like this to add to ANY of my beloved watches...

Bad realization, but finally a great idea to solve the "problem" that serious watch owners have with smart watches.

For all the others... There is the iWatch
 
Last edited by a moderator:
borgusio said:
Everyone here forgets that watches are almost the only serious accessory/jewel a man can wear. Therefore it is pretty clear to me that most watches are chosen by customers depending on their shape and look&feel rather than functionality.

In my case for instance I don't - and will never - own square watches because I do not like them. Therefore such a solution is more appealing to me than the apple watch. Of course it looks bulky, but it is just the first iteration. In general I think that with a thinner display i would buy something like this to add to ANY of my beloved watches...

Bad realization, but finally a great idea to solve the "problem" that serious watch owners have with smart watches.

For all the others... There is the iWatch

----------



I don't agree. I got my montblanc as a present from my family for my master degree. At that time I did not appreciate it. Now I use it and I love it to sign contracts...
Click to expand...

It's in same size range as 90% of men'S watch that sell any volume out there.. So, how is it bulky? 10.5-11.5 mm bulky? A 8mm watch would be significantly smaller than the average male watch right now.

A Round watch, with current tech, can't be made small enough to please you, not to mention the screen will need to be larger to fit text in (look at how huge the Moto 360 is... Not, that's bulky).
 
So 250 Euros for this and no one cried foul at the price, but $350 for an Apple Watch which blows this out of the water and that's WAY too expensive. smh Idiots.

----------
Arran said:
OMG its huge! You won't be wearing that with French cuffs (or any cuffs for that matter)

And be careful not to fall off your yacht. You'll sink like a stone. :)
Click to expand...

Not if you're Rob Konrad. You'll just swim for 16 hours back to shore. It's remarkable what you can do when your life is on the line.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12155533/rob-konrad-recounts-16-hour-swim-survival
 
Arcady said:
You have got to be kidding me.

You realize that nobody cares if your pen matches your watch, right?

Pens are free. They have the names of hotels or bars or whatever on the side. Some of them just say "Bic" on them.
Click to expand...

You really missed the point of my post. And you took the time to comment in a thread about watches on an :apple: fanboy website, so you do care :D

You also seem to have missed the point of comment sections in general...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
nando87 said:
They just will sell smartbands like the gear fit.
Click to expand...

Those devices don't come close to the incredibly diverse and ever-expanding ecosystem/functionality of the Apple Watch and you know it! Plus, they don't look very good.
 
filmantopia said:
Those devices don't come close to the incredibly diverse and ever-expanding ecosystem/functionality of the Apple Watch and you know it! Plus, they don't look very good.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that Apple will sell some similar band (form factor)
 
nando87 said:
Yes because a Ferrari F12 is more functional than a Fiat Punto
Click to expand...

Yes, it offers better acceleration, better braking, better cornering, and better comfort. It can lap the Fiorano test circuit in 1 minute, 23 seconds. Try that with your Punto.

nando87 said:
and a Patek Nautilus is more functional than a Casio GShock.
Click to expand...

The Patek Nautilus and Casio G-Shock are not the same kind of product. The G-Shock is intended for use in sports. The Patek is intended as a fashion accessory. Someone with a G-Shock isn't moving to a Patek. They are moving to a $200 Seiko. And then from there, they are moving to an Apple Watch. And then they aren't buying the Patek because they'd lose functions they've come to rely on (text message display, fitness tracking, email, etc.).

nando87 said:
And a pair of Edward Greens more functional than some Reeboks
Click to expand...

Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between fashion and sports. The Edward Greens are not a luxury version of Reeboks. Nikes are the luxury brand in the sports shoe category. You're not going to see Kobe Bryant wearing a pair of Edward Greens because he views them as a step-up from Nikes.

And, by the way, shove you sarcasm up your...

----------
Fiestaman said:
Not if you're Rob Konrad. You'll just swim for 16 hours back to shore. It's remarkable what you can do when your life is on the line.
Click to expand...

No, it's amazing what a former professional athlete can do when his life is on the line.
 
Not bad for its price. But is it 100% for certain it will be compatible with other Timewalker Watches? there are 50% 50% answers, so it's kind of hard to tell.
 
Col4bin said:
Yes but with iPhone, Apple was still competing in a relatively new smartphone tech market. The luxury timepiece market is far from computer tech and is very well established. As I stated in a previous post, there is certainly room for Apple to co-exist in this space and their market plan/business justifiation clearly confirms this. It'll be interesting to see how successfully they can penetrate this market.
Click to expand...

No there were plenty of "smart phones" they just all sucked.
 
It looks terrible, which is really odd coming from fancy watchmakers, and they should've used front-lit e-ink instead. But it's a decent try.
 
foodog said:
No there were plenty of "smart phones" they just all sucked.
Click to expand...

That's pretty subjective. At launch, the iPhone was a lot of fun to play with (cool UI and form factor). However - it was also extremely limited in what it could do vs many other smart phones at the time.

So based on what you wanted or needed to get done - many of the smart phones you want to put in the "sucked" category were actually much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back