Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
His super premium brands need not worry,

That's the only point of your post that really matters. Where do you think Swatch Group make their money, after all?

As for your other argument, I just don't see it. I can't conceive of someone who owns a classy Breguet, Omega or Glashütte Original leaving their actual watch at home to give wrist-time (as the watch fans call it) to an Apple-gadget. I'm not even 30, so I'm not some stuffy old reactionary, but I'd never choose an iWatch over my Omega, even if it made me breakfast. I might wear an iWatch when I'm working out, however, which is why I'd contend that many people who are actually into watches will buy a fine mechanical watch and then, almost as an afterthought, an iWatch too, just to complement their iDevices. And seriously, your kids' faces on your wrist? That would be tacky as hell, IMHO.

And yet I would also contest your point that the rumored iWatch would endanger Swatch's semi-premium brands - I assume you're talking about brands like Longines, Hamilton, Tissot... Those may not be "super premium", but I'll bet you right here and now that a well-made Longines containing a nicely finished, Swiss made ETA movement, will still beat the pants off a mass-produced gadget watch in terms of looks and craftsmanship.

Hell, a Tissot Heritage Visodate is damn beautiful, costs about 600 bucks and tempts even people with multi-thousand super-duper-premium watches because it's a no-********, vintage-inspired piece at a fair price. Even a "cheap" watch like that serves a different purpose than an iWatch and wouldn't really compete with it at all. Tissot's "T-Touch" models may be a different story, granted.
 
Last edited:
That's the only point of your post that really matters. Where do you think Swatch Group make their money, after all?

As for your other argument, I just don't see it. I can't conceive of someone who owns a classy Breguet, Omega or Glashütte Original leaving their actual watch at home to give wrist-time (as the watch fans call it) to an Apple-gadget. I'm not even 30, so I'm not some stuffy old reactionary, but I'd never choose an iWatch over my Omega, even if it made me breakfast. I might wear an iWatch when I'm working out, however, which is why I'd contend that many people who are actually into watches will buy a fine mechanical watch and then, almost as an afterthought, an iWatch too, just to complement their iDevices. And seriously, your kids' faces on your wrist? That would be tacky as hell, IMHO.

And yet I would also contest your point that the rumored iWatch would endanger Swatch's semi-premium brands - I assume you're talking about brands like Longines, Hamilton, Tissot... Those may not be "super premium", but I'll bet you right here and now that a well-made Longines containing a nicely finished, Swiss made ETA movement, will still beat the pants off a mass-produced gadget watch in terms of looks and craftsmanship.

Hell, a Tissot Heritage Visodate is damn beautiful, costs about 600 bucks and tempts even people with multi-thousand super-duper-premium watches because it's a no-********, vintage-inspired piece at a fair price. Even a "cheap" watch like that serves a different purpose than an iWatch and wouldn't really compete with it at all. Tissot's "T-Touch" models may be a different story, granted.

I dont think those people is what apple targets anyway mate.
 
I dont think those people is what apple targets anyway mate.

Well, duh. That's why all the posts in this thread indicating that Swatch should be worried about Apple make zero sense. Hence MY posts in this thread.
 
I have to agree here. Apple will sell millions of iWatches by virtue of the brand name, but something like Google Glass or the next gen Kinect are the next real revolution in tech.
 
Does anyone else think that the media will crucify apple when this thing is unveiled? Regardless of how good it is? I'm scared.
Of course they will. Why would that scare you?

The media crucified Apple when they released the iPad, and look where that lead.

The media either insulted or ignored the iPod, and look how that turned out.

And while the media had some actual interest in the iPhone, but also had plenty of heckling for it when it was first released. And they've certainly crucified each of the last several iPhone iterations, all of which have gone on to sell more than the previous one, which is to say more than any other smartphone, period (from a pure profit standpoint, in fact, each of those crucified iPhone iterations has probably made more money than any product in any industry other than crude oil).

I'm not saying the hypothetical iWatch (which may not even ever see the light of day) will be awesome, but whatever it is, the tech punditry will crucify it, ridicule it, and that will have no bearing whatsoever on how successful the product is.


None of this changes the fact that people who wear $1000 bracelets that happen to tell time will still wear those things, and the companies making them aren't in any great danger of losing business. (Unless the wrist-based communication link becomes so essential to modern life that it forces all other objects off the wrist of any wealthy businessperson, which is unlikely, and even then they'll probably just make the equivalent of those absurd diamond-encrusted Vertu cell phones.) The issue is that the iWatch could, in theory, get a vast number of people who don't wear a watch at all--I gave up a couple of years ago--or who consider it only a minor fashion accessory to put an Apple device on their wrist.
 
Do we need a history lesson?

Apple Stores- People all over said that Apple Stores would fail. Some said that even within a year they would closing up shop on the last one! Yet look how Apple Stores have been?

iPhone- You can find numerous articles all over the internet of top dogs saying all the time "Apples Phone will be a huge flop." or Apples iPhone should be called "iFailed." Need I go on? Doing a simple Google search will find these within a minute.

iPad- Again how many said the iPad would fail? Their is no need for it? It's useless? I can keep going. Again numerous people saying that it would fail.

So how about y'all look at all of these and see what they have in common. They are a HUGE success.

I'm not saying the iWatch is the next big thing. Though I'm not saying it will fail. I've learned that I do trust Apple to show me what we need instead of myself. Like Henry Ford said. "If I would had asked people what they wanted, they would had said faster horses." None of us really know what we want or need yet.

Just saying Jobs has said before "You can't be afraid to cannibalize sales of your own products if you really believe it."
 
Last edited:
There are apps that use the compass, but the turn-by-turn doesn't need it.

GPS with turn-by-turn has operated on devices without a compass for a decade and a half. I was using it in the late 1990s on a laptop.

It figures out which direction you are going by taking two or more measurements of your position, and then drawing a vector between them. If you're close enough to a road, it snaps you onto the road. Navigation systems built into cars may have compasses or be tied to steering and speed so that they can still follow your position inside tunnels.

If the maps app used the compass for turn-by-turn, it would get confused if you turned the phone sideways while it was giving you direction. It would also complain about too much interference, and instruct you to move the phone in a figure 8.

When you put Maps in orientate mode, it does use the compass (and will complain if there is interference). This is handy when you are walking and your destination is out of sight. It can tell you if you are walking in the right direction.

A satnav App I use a lot does complain about the compass a lot, this is due the fact that my compass is somehow damaged. So this App IS using the compass.
Even Apple and Google Maps are often confused which way I am heading.
 
A satnav App I use a lot does complain about the compass a lot, this is due the fact that my compass is somehow damaged. So this App IS using the compass.
Even Apple and Google Maps are often confused which way I am heading.

GPS uses satellite triangulation to figure exactly where you are on the planet so once you're moving, it knows exactly which direction you're going. Only thing a magnetic compass would be used for is initial orientation before the routing algorithm starts.

If the GPS app was glitched off orientation, and I've had it happen on Navigon, it's most likely a software issue and the turn by turn becomes hella annoying and useless. The voice will tell you to go North on the Freeway and then 2 seconds later will tell you to continue going South and will constantly be rerouting.
 
That's the only point of your post that really matters. Where do you think Swatch Group make their money, after all?

As for your other argument, I just don't see it. I can't conceive of someone who owns a classy Breguet, Omega or Glashütte Original leaving their actual watch at home to give wrist-time (as the watch fans call it) to an Apple-gadget. I'm not even 30, so I'm not some stuffy old reactionary, but I'd never choose an iWatch over my Omega, even if it made me breakfast. I might wear an iWatch when I'm working out, however, which is why I'd contend that many people who are actually into watches will buy a fine mechanical watch and then, almost as an afterthought, an iWatch too, just to complement their iDevices. And seriously, your kids' faces on your wrist? That would be tacky as hell, IMHO.

And yet I would also contest your point that the rumored iWatch would endanger Swatch's semi-premium brands - I assume you're talking about brands like Longines, Hamilton, Tissot... Those may not be "super premium", but I'll bet you right here and now that a well-made Longines containing a nicely finished, Swiss made ETA movement, will still beat the pants off a mass-produced gadget watch in terms of looks and craftsmanship.

Hell, a Tissot Heritage Visodate is damn beautiful, costs about 600 bucks and tempts even people with multi-thousand super-duper-premium watches because it's a no-********, vintage-inspired piece at a fair price. Even a "cheap" watch like that serves a different purpose than an iWatch and wouldn't really compete with it at all. Tissot's "T-Touch" models may be a different story, granted.

I'm 50, been wearing a premium Omegas for over a decade, had a drawer full of 1st gen Swatches in the box, and I had more delight from my Apple products in the past couple of years than I ever got from my timepieces. TBH, I don't even wear the watches anymore... But I don't leave home without my iPhone. The watches were important when I thought I was making a statement about who I was... But nowadays, not so much ... The iOS devices are so much more fun and useful, and if a WristPod followed in this tradition, my wrist wouldn't have space anymore for the watches I already don't wear (one thing I do miss, however, kinda, is the feeling of the automatic winding mechanism wiring around inside the watch case.)

As for pics of kids faces on wrist, I think you misunderstand my point. I was referring to seeing your kids in your wrist when you talk to them via your WristPod.
 
It may not necessarily be what Apple does with the watch's base applications. Let's not leave out independent developers and their innovative ideas.
 
Well, duh. That's why all the posts in this thread indicating that Swatch should be worried about Apple make zero sense. Hence MY posts in this thread.

If they care about the future they indeed should be worry, either apple or google hell microsoft again try to partnertship with a watch brand you better notice; in 50-60 years i doubt the watch as whe know it will be relevant.
 
iWatch is set to resurrect the dying watches market

The market appears to have survived the recession and doing quite well

Yes...I'm sure Apple will kill off the worlds largest watch company that makes some of the best watches in the world...I'm sure people will trade in a swatch for an iWatch :rolleyes:

Seriously, some of the zealots posting in this thread have no idea what they are talking about with respect to watches. Casio G-shocks may be concerned.

The CEO should just say "no comment", he's making a fool of himself.

How so?

Those will be words he will live to regret.

Steve Ballmer:

"Now we'll get a chance to go through this again in phones and music players. There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get.

Balmer was right. when he first commented on the original iPhone. It would have been a mediocre device for apple if it maintained its $500 price point with contract. The phone only took off once the phone was subsidized. So much for apple changing the way telecoms do business...

A watch is not a productivity tool. It is a prestige item for real men. An electronic device to replace a shiny, mechanical Rolex?

Agreed. The majority of owners buy watches for fashion reasons. I'm not replacing my AP or Rolex with an iWatch

Well, women have all sorts of jewelry. Men have only one. Their watches. Back to the subject, an electronic device can never replace that mechanical tick-tock.

Sums up the difference quite succinctly
 
Well, their is PLENTY of hatred towards Apple users just like your implying towards people who like nice watches, and you have stereotyped those users the same as Apple users are stereotyped.
Also, it IS the same, why get an iPhone or iPod or Mac when their are many many many many many many many cheaper devices that do the exact same thing and some do it better also.
Apple is a fashion brand, people even see an iPhone as a piece of jewellery, it is the same no matter how you spin it.

And please, tell us, how is using a watch not anywhere near as easy as using an iDevice or Mac computer? Unless you can't tell the time?

It's also pretty hilarious how you imply middle class people buy Apple products but only millionaires and the super rich buy nice luxury watches? Seriously you can't be any more wrong if you tried, stop stereotyping so much. You don't need to be mega rich to have a nice TAG for instance and I have seen plenty of expensive watches on middle class wrists. I am also pretty certain that many millionaires own Apple products, so are you also saying your a millionaire?

-----
sorry, but your reply doesn't really make sense to me.

point by point:

1. "Well, their is PLENTY of hatred towards Apple users just like your implying towards people who like nice watches"

> I never made any statement at all about "people who like nice watches", nor did i imply anything about them, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. I was commenting on Rolex watches in particular, and only Rolex watches. And I don't "hate" anyone. The only person i was dissing was the goofus who wrote the original statement about Rolex watches being for "real men", a statement no 21 century person would defend.


2. "and you have stereotyped those users the same as Apple users are stereotyped."

> I don't stereotype anyone. I listed the reasons why the majority of ROLEX buyers purchase, and wear, a Rolex. If you can think of other, legitimate reasons to buy a Rolex (a watch that is more expensive, less accurate, and less attractive that other premium watches- Tag would be a good example) then please list them.


3. "Also, it IS the same, why get an iPhone or iPod or Mac when their are many many many many many many many cheaper devices that do the exact same thing and some do it better also."

> this one's a doosey. implying that all smartphones are the same almost disqualifies you from this discussion board. it is absolutely legitimate to say you LIKE the features of one smartphone over another, but to imply that they are "all the same" is simply false. they are not. they use fundamentally different approaches to design, UX, app selection, the list goes on and on. if you don't notice a difference, then buy the cheapest, by all means. just don't pretend there isn't a difference.


4. "Apple is a fashion brand, people even see an iPhone as a piece of jewellery, it is the same no matter how you spin it"

> it is not the same. just because SOME people use apple products as fashion accessories doesn't mean that the brand is a pure fashion or status brand. they are also amazingly well designed and engineered machines with state-of-the-art technology and capabilities that set the standard for the industry in many ways. it just means that some people have less functional reasons for buying them. that doesn't change the product itself. a rolex, on the other hand, has long since been bypassed by other watches technologically, fashion-wise, etc. so buying a Rolex is much more of a pure "statement" of one's status or wealth. there are some Rolexes that are 50-100x more expensive than other expensive, very nice watches. the iPhone is not 50-100x more expensive than ANY smartphone. price-wise, iPhones are on parity with other full featured smartphones like the Galaxy S4, and at a slight premium over other smartphones, many of which have either lesser build-quality or lower ease-of-use. in summary: iPhone invented the category, innovates at an incredible pace by any historical standard, is reasonably priced based on the market and level of innovation, and is affordable to hundreds of millions of people.


5. "And please, tell us, how is using a watch not anywhere near as easy as using an iDevice or Mac computer? Unless you can't tell the time?"

> what are you [even] talking about? using a standard wristwatch is definitely easier that using any smartphone. i never implied anything to the contrary.

6. "It's also pretty hilarious how you imply middle class people buy Apple products but only millionaires and the super rich buy nice luxury watches? Seriously you can't be any more wrong if you tried, stop stereotyping so much. You don't need to be mega rich to have a nice TAG for instance and I have seen plenty of expensive watches on middle class wrists."

> see #2. a "nice watch" and "Rolex" are different things. i mentioned a specific brand because i was commenting on THAT BRAND. yes, many middle class folks buy nice watches. i never implied otherwise. but rolex watches, especially as they were referred to by the post i was originally replying to, are a different animal. the watches themselves actually have a cool history. but it is a mechanical machine doing what can be done digitally for pennies, which makes it anachronistic. something people might admire for it's classic look, precision and what it represents. but it's appeal is not "functional". so unless you are specifically a watch enthusiast or collector, or very wealthy, spending $8-50K on a Rolex Submariner is just plain nuts. it's simply too big of percentage of your total income/wealth to justify it's cost, especially for the completely basic function it performs. if you are mega-wealthy, it's a drop in the bucket- do whatever you want! but if you truly are "middle class", spending that kinda dough on a watch SCREAMS "look at me! pleeeeease think of me as much more wealthier than i really am!" the book "the millionaire next door" analyzed data from thousands of millionaires and found that the majority of them never spent more than $500 on a watch. why are they rich? because they spent as money as possible on things that didn't add measurable value to their life. they are, in the purest sense, a luxury item.

the iPhone, on the other hand, was created from the ground up as a device to provide more, and better, function. and it was created in a way so that it could continuously add MORE function. an iPhone can, in a very real sense, help you be more productive, communicate better, run your business better, laugh, learn, enjoy... the list goes on and on.

therefore... insisting that a product (ROLEX) that performs one BASIC function (along with a few other minor ones) that you can basically get for FREE from multiple sources in daily life, and executes it's function it in an anachronistic/bygone way for as much money as people spend on a car or down payment on a house is the SAME TYPE OF LUXURY/STATUS SYMBOL as a product (iPhone) that's mass produced, affordable to hundreds of millions around the world, highly functional, currently the state-of-the-art in a category that is still in it's infancy, ever-evolving, and adds so much value to people's lives that an ECOSYSTEM has sprung up around it to add even more value is just wrong. period.


7. "stop stereotyping so much"

> i wasn't. for your convenience, here's a link to the definition of "stereotype" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stereotype


8. "I am also pretty certain that many millionaires own Apple products, so are you also saying your a millionaire?"

> just because a "millionaire can buy apple products" doesn't mean that "buying apple products makes you a millionaire" OR that "anyone who buys apple products must also be a millionaire". see "basic laws of math/logic" for a more thorough explanation. hard to believe this was your close.
 
Oh I get it! So Swatch and Microsoft couldn't make a successful iWatch which means....Apple's efforts are doomed? Right.... :rolleyes:

yes. people don't even wear watches like they use. i use to be a watch wearer. tons of watches. but honestly for the last few year i see little use for a watch.

people don't wear watches like they use to.
 
Largest watch company on the planet. You may have heard of some of their brands - Longines, Tissot, Omega, Breguet and, of course, Swatch.

My answer was of the sarcastic variety, but while we're on the topic, Citizens is actually the largest global seller of wrist watches. Since their acquisition of Bulova in 2007, they account for 24% of all global wrist watch sales. Sometimes even Wikipedia is wrong....
 
My answer was of the sarcastic variety, but while we're on the topic, Citizens is actually the largest global seller of wrist watches. Since their acquisition of Bulova in 2007, they account for 24% of all global wrist watch sales. Sometimes even Wikipedia is wrong....

I thought your answer might be, but there are so many that haven't got a clue so I took my chances. My facts were not from Wiki, but from the Swatch group it self. Guess I shouldn't have taken the corprate self boasting at face value... My bad
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.