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.
Photos of Montblanc's Watch 'e-Strap' Show Low-Resolution Display, Bulky Fit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Again, what is your proof of constant charging, even a Ipod Nano which is the same size as the largest watch with tech that uses more battery doesn't need constant charging unless you're listening bluetooth music all day long.
Of course, if you use something to death, you'll need to charge it. I can kill my phone in a few hours with some games... What does that prove? That the phone can't last a day?
I've see your other post, so your leitmotiv on this can't be taken seriously at all.
You have got to be kidding me.
But give it to CNET and those clowns would glow like an xmas tree over it.
But give it to CNET and those clowns would glow like an xmas tree over it.
the funny thing is even though these watch companies make millions of dollars on these things I guarantee they put a team of 2 or 3 cheap engineers on this project hoping to get something for nothing and call it a victory. It is such a poor implementation it is embarrassing.
...surely the 350 managers above were breathing fire down their backs and they just took the PIC dev kit reference design they were given and slapped it in the hastily designed casing and modified 'Hello World' to say 'Notifications'.
...surely the 350 managers above were breathing fire down their backs and they just took the PIC dev kit reference design they were given and slapped it in the hastily designed casing and modified 'Hello World' to say 'Notifications'.
Last edited:
Hey, you would be tremendously right if the main function of a wristwatch would be doing things like measuring time, but the fact is the main function of a watch is being beautiful, a nice complement, with mechanical complications just for prestige, aesthetics and historic reasons.
Watches which are meant to measure time and so on are atomic and others. These kind of watches make the GPS system work, make internet work... That's not the case with something you wear on your wrist, even less when you would have the same thing but useful in your pocket.
The fact is people say once and again that they don't need a watch because they already have a phone so they know what time it is. Exactly! Only not, because as I'm saying it's not mainly for telling you the hour, although it does it too, but for being nice to see, for feeling special, luxurious, prestigious and beautiful. If you don't understand this, you understand nothing about the luxury watch industry.
The main function of a concourse horse is not to travel, rednecks, it's to pleasure people just with its presence, nature and elegance. For God's sake, you are the kind of people who thought artistic painting was death when photography was invented. "Ohhh look at that, my photo is much sharper than your Velazquez, soon when new generation rich people arrive nobody will want that, you understand nothing about technology ha ha ha how intelligent I am ha ha ha rich people are stupid that's why they're rich and I'm poor ha ha ha".
Montblanc has done this POS for exploring new segments, but its latest and most expensive addition since the smartwatch concept arrived has been... guess what... Minerva, a prestigious manufacture of mechanical chronometer movements, go figure. Do you know why? For increasing their prestige, price tag and the level of their buyers.
Last edited:
Like many fine things you buy them for what they are it's not terribly complicated and many won't get it and that's OK.
It is probably a safe assumption that the majority of people who are going to be interested in buying an Watch already have an iPhone.
I don't foresee masses of Galaxy S5 owners lining up to buy one.
MacRumors has always reported on things that are not rumors. Would you prefer them to stay quite during one of Apple's product release/Keynotes because the new products Apple is introducing are no longer rumored?
MacRumors has also always reported on items that compete on some level with Apple, or have some other connection to Apple (lawsuits with other companies. new, current and former employees relationships with other companies/products, etc)
I have a Mont Blanc watch, I would never buy this thing. The only reason I have this watch is because I have a Mont Blanc pen so it works well when I wear a suit and have the pen with me. But you are right, they are not a proper watch maker. One can easily get a nicer watch.
Sorry, but that is too narrow. If luxury timepieces were only attractive because of the looks then the manufacturers would be in trouble. Looks are easily copied. Look at Festina, Michael Kors, Guess who readily copy the outer appearance of more expensive timepieces.
The attractiveness of luxury watches is a combination of the following (and I´m probably missing another few in this list):
- Mechanical complexity
- Mechanical accuracy
- Material quality
- Limited availibility
- Historical significance
- Brand
It is highly questionable whether the Apple Smartwatch can compete fully with luxury timepieces given the fact that it can only tick a few of the categories above. This is not a case where consumers just look for a gadget that does something better than their existing one. So comparisons like horse-carriages and cars, slide rulers and calculators and dumbphones and smartphones do not make sense here.
EDIT: What NANDO87 said above. Spot on if you ask me.
I agree that Apple is not competing full on with the luxury segment... Yet. The Gold Apple watch though will be in the lower reaches of that segment and will hurt the more price sensitive buyers in that range, but not those with a bit more money.
Apple though could obliterate the sub $1500 watch market (not, luxury, but the highest volume of watch sold), hurting the luxury watchmakers that way. Some sell lower end models.
Though, by making watches cool again, they could still be OK by extending their volume of sales through an expanded market in the high end.
---
As for comparing your list of things that make people buy high end watches
- Mechanical complexity and Mechanical accuracy
I'd argue that those ones are cherished by the few, and can readily be replaced
by technological complexity, providing a sophisticated set of features for most (but obviously not everyone).
- Material quality (Build quality is trademark of Apple, they compete well here)
- Limited availability... (Apple really doesn't want that to be true...)
- Historical significance (The New watch is a whole new category, so it could be significant, though historical would be stretching it)
And finally...
- Brand
Well, we know how strong Apple's brand is in the high end of the smart phone market. Still, probably too common for the very top end as a brand (lacks exclusivity). So, if they really want to play up there, they'd probably want to create a sub brand... I don't know, maybe the "Gala" watch brand
(you know, Gala like the Apple).I'd argue that this is the main reason someone buys a watch, any watch. The brand reflects history/quality status even if the model doesn't look at all like an historical one.
Last edited:
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.
And if I purchase a Blue Ray DVD player, I then have to purchase a TV in order to use it.
----------
For that matter, one could drive a cheap Lada but many prefer a BMW or a Porsche for a reason.
I doubt he cares if anyone notices if it matches. Its a luxury item that speaks of great quality and for that reason alone, I assume it makes him happy inside to use it.
Perhaps you should understand if you own a mac
----------
Having owned the Samsung Gear watch which I found terribly useless, I would DEFINITELY buy the iWatch.
The two cant be compared.
Unlikely.
There is a huge segment of watch enthusiasts that specifically stay in the sub $1,500 market. Lots of niche manufactures out there and cool watches to collect in this price range.
Not just collectors either. Nice, timeless, watches make great gifts. Tech gadgets just don't offer the same sentiment.
I own several really cool sub $1,500 watches.
Watches never became "uncool". Actually quite the opposite. There is just a segment of the population that only wore watches at one point to keep time. When It was no longer necessary to wear one to tell what time it was then the only thing left was to ear them because they are cool
Even though it is still much easier, and more professional, to glance at a watch mid meeting to see what time it is than to look at a smart phone.
We have had technically more accurate watches for far less money for decades. Yet people chose to buy nicer watches.
Not even close to the same level.
You have apparently never *really* held or looked at a truly quality watch. It's not going to be possible to hit the price point Apple wants to and compete on quality with the best watches.
You clearly don't understand the history of time keeping. It ties very closely with nearly every level of sport and competition, wars, sailing, navigation, flight, even the moon landing.
From the very first time there was a race there was a need to keep time. Many nice watches tie directly to the hobbies and passions that people have. They represent something about the person, an interest, a style, an adventure, an event in time. It's not just about telling time.
Ever notice how many race oriented sports are sponsored by watchmakers?
This could be argued of any product. Hell, people drink a certain drink, buy a certain style of shoe, car, bike, laptop, case, phone, all becuase of the image it represents to them. For outward or inward pleasure.
If this wasn't the case then we would all be living in bland boxes, driving soulless cars, wearing clothes with no color and only function.
Right, and people wear the same utilitarian grey overalls and stay at the cheapest available motels, because etc etc.
Face it: people buy luxury goods. They don't make those purchases out of neccessity; they make them because they want to and because, amazingly enough, some people *do* care about having expensive fountain pens, not plastic ballpoints.
You are correct, I have no proof of Apple Watch's possible nightly charging--this is all based on rumor and upon a user's usage. If true however, I find it odd to equate a watch to a smartphone, since nightly charging of a smartphone is to be expected. I can't say the same for a watch.
----------
You're actually making my point. (We are both on the same side of the argument here.) You just stated it a lttle more eloquently.
They had no experience making a cell phone in 2007 and look how disastrous that turned out.
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.
I might buy one to keep in the box, lol. I almost did that in 2007 with the iPhone but decided against it. The other week one sold on eBay for like $15,000. You're spot on about everything in your comment.
I don't understand why there is such a command and conquer mentality among Apple fans. Why do they always crave for other companies to be wiped out as soon as Apple enters a new market?
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.