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.
Swatch Denies Report It Is Working With Apple on iWatch Wearable
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is, indeed. Their hardware is of low quality compared to other. Tag Heuer, for instance, uses the generic Swatch clockwork.
Swatch is to watches as Beats is to headphones. It seems to be the perfect purchase for Apple, who has lost its vision of quality.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
There is no NEED, but I thought yesterday's rumor of partnering with various watch brands DID make sense. Why? The "watch is jewelry" argument. We've had 100+ years of exposure to watches of every size, shape, color, type, build, etc. No one size, type, color, design appeals to all or even seems to dominate (look around at the watches people wear now). Watches are diverse fashion like clothes. Just as an iUniform makes little sense, so I view an iWatch design or two being too conforming to attract the masses. Watches are often the one piece of jewelry a man wants to wear. I doubt he wants to wear the exact same watch design as just about every other man.
This partnering idea sounded great because it seemed like it could support a wide diversity of designs for the "shell" underpinned by Apple "guts". Much like carplay is Apple inside of shells designed by many companies or maybe
TV is almost invisible with the bulk of that experience running on all sizes, types, colors, etc of HDTVs designed by others.Apple doesn't typically play the many styles game (look how much uproar from the faithful on the idea of potentially 2 new phones differing in screen sizes by less than 1 inch). So, thinking beyond ourselves here, do we really see the masses forgoing 100+ years of watch design diversity to all conform to an Apple watch design or two? I don't. Sure "we" will buy anything but beyond "us" is where the bulk of the money of each "next big thing" is made.
Here's my question. A watch is supposed to tell time.
What's so interesting about a touch screen watch? XD
What's so interesting about a touch screen watch? XD
"This type of agreement would be unusual for Swatch, whose CEO has publicly expressed skepticism about the future success of the iWatch, saying he doesn't believe "it's the next revolution." ...
Humm... Have I heard this before regarding apple products?
Humm... Have I heard this before regarding apple products?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
A phone is supposed to be for phone calls. What's so interesting about a touch-screen phone?
Apparently, the iWatch will be much more than a watch, much like iPhone is much more than a phone. I suspect many people would identify their primary use of iPhone as something other than the phone functionality itself (web browser, texting, email checker, app use, etc).
There's all this rumor of some kind of "magical" health monitoring device too.
Personally, I don't quite see a masses fit for an iWatch no matter how I think of it but I'm certain it will be more than a touch-screen watch.
I wasn't trying to suggest that they would become a supplier to watch companies, but that the iWatch could be the core technology that watch companies can make cases for. Just because other companies make iPhone cases doesn't make them solely a supplier to case manufacturers. Plenty of people use their iPhones without cases and prefer the slick minimal aesthetic of it that way. I see the iWatch taking the same path. The people who love Apple's aesthetic will leave the watch naked, while people seeking colorful or cute or high-end watches instead will seek out a case.
I'm not talking about the 12 of the brands that they own I'm talking about the plastic junk that is out of style.
----------
The difference is beats makes tons of money and they are responsible for creating an entire industry of lifestyle headphones!
Tag Heuer is a mall watch, fashion brand.
Swatch is a conglomerate. They "OWN" the Swiss Watch industry as in owning low-end to high end luxury brands such as Bregeut, Blancpain, and Omega. Some of the high end watches cost in excess of $200K plus.
More importantly, they own all the supply chain. Movement manufacturers like Valjoux and ETA. ETA supplies most of the movements to brands like Tag Heuer. You think Tag (or it's parent company, LVMH) makes their own movements,cases,crystal, parts? Nope, a majority of it is sourced through Swatch Group.
People who think of Swatch shouldn't be thinking about the low-end kids brand and I think the Journalists are to blame as they are quoting the CEO and founder's son of the Swatch "GROUP"
Not sight unseen. If it's a nice design and functional,count me in.
----------
Now that makes sense....
That's exactly my point; Casio went geeky with more sci-fi inspired functions, The big guys made watches even more expensive jewlery. Swatch created a whole new category were watches are fun, colorful, and don't abide by the classic rules. To be fair to Casio their disruption was also interesting too.
I understand Swatch alienated many people; but then again so did Apple and so did Samsung. For a watch that was thought to be a 'fashion fad' to be still around says that they are doing something right, they have an audience.
The Journalist is quoting the CEO and founder's son of the SWATCH GROUP. It is the fault of the news outlet as they can't seem to fathom the difference between the brand and the group.
Let me lay it down to you.
SWATCH GROUP owns the Swiss Watchmaking industry; most of all the supply chain of the entire Swiss market.
There are 4 groups in the Swiss watch industry:
1) Swatch Group. By far the largest and most comprehensive group.
2) LVMH Louis Vuitton Monet Hennessey (Swatch's main competitor). They do more than watches as they luxe lifestyle brands like purses and high end liquor. Yet they source mostly from Swatch. They do have some high end brands like Zenith which are in-house.
3) Rolex. One of the largest independent self, in-house Swiss manufacturers
4) Small independents not own by either Swatch or LVMH like Patek
Everyone sources from SWATCH in one form or another including LVMH and Rolex.
Swatch owns ETA and Valjoux the 2 largest movement manufactures. It would be like companies buying engines from General Motors are Toyota. Tag's movements are mostly stock ETA. Even Rolex's low-end Tudor brand sources ETA. Rolex provides their own in-house for their main watches. Even Patek Phillipe sources small parts like springs, rotors, lubrication from one of Swatch's subsidiaries.
I hope this makes it clear.
----------
The low-end Swatch brand did more than create a new category. It literally saved the Swiss.
Back in 1983. The Swiss watch industry was on the VERGE of collapse from the Japanese quartz. The whole industry was decimated.
Nicolas Hayek form Swatch which sold cheap inexpensive "quartz watches" The success and most, importantly, the PROFITS enable him to create the SWATCH GROUP. This in turn allowed him to consolidate all the small Swiss manufacturing. He then bought out all the old great dead or near dead brands from the grave. From there, the Swiss watch industry saw a new renaissance and now the market has gone up from cheap watches back to multi-thousand dollar mechanical time-pieces. Now you have Omega, Breguet, Blancpain and the Swatch Group has made the Swiss watch industry relevant again.
I have never heard of anyone throwing out an Omega, Blancpain, or any of the other high end, historical brand Swatch designs and manufactures.
But if you think about it modern Apple products, by their nature, are built to be disposable, not treasured heirlooms. The original iPod, iPhone, & iPad are now all functionally obsolete by Apple. Meanwhile if you have a vintage Omega you have a fine piece of jewelry of some value.
Except that HP makes crappy laptops and Swatch has some well made brands. No one doubts Swatch's watchmaking skills.
The only smartwatch I would ever consider would have to be a phone itself or I wouldn't even consider it. If it requires me to have my phone around too, there's just no point. Perhaps all the handoff stuff is in anticipation of this: I can answer the call on my watch as I make my way to a larger device and then immediately switch over.
Thanks for posting this. A very good summary.
Unfortunately many of the people commenting on this Swatch-Apple rumor didn't seem to know what Swatch (the GROUP) really is about today...i.e. it's much more than a colorful plastic watch brand some people remember from the late 80s.
Most of the high-end brands of Swatch Group have nothing to fear when smartwatches arrive. These are collectibles and fashion/luxury accessories for men (and some women).
It will probably be the low-end and mid-range watch brands costing up to around $1k that will see major revenue downfalls if smartwatches are successful in 2015 and beyond.
That low-end segment is not the one where most Swiss watchmakers make their money (high-end watches with high margins costing several thousand $) today.
Low-end watches are in a tough spot already because of smartphones. Who needs a cheap Casio or Timex as a functional item ("What's the time?") when you can get that information on your phone?
Nobody needs an expensive Omega, Rolex or Harry Winston to tell the time. It's a (male)...
- status symbol
- luxury and fashion accessory as well as
- a collector piece (with its value lasting for decades and often rising*)
____
* In contrast: How much is the original iPhone from 2007 worth today?
Last edited:
A phone is supposed to make calls, what's so interesting about a touch screen phone? XD
Because the phone is in your pocket or briefcase? Yes, that would be the answer.
In a few cases, yes, the usability factor is higher, especially at work or on the go, at the beach etc.
But look at sales of low-end watches since mobile phones started enjoying a very high penetration rate, sales are collapsing since around 2000-2010.
Most people under 30 don't wear a (cheap) wristwatch any longer.
Tim Cook himself commented on this at the AllThingsD conference back in 2013 (you can still view the interview online).
Swatch is not sitting idly. Last year they introduced a new manufacturing which created a SHOCK and AWE in the entire industry. Everyone is still reeling from it's announcement. It is a new movement called the SISTEM51. They're investing in new technologies which will give them their competitive advantage.
In 1983, they introduced the quartz $35 watch with 51 parts.
30 years later, they took a challenge and gathered all their top engineers from all their subsidaries (ETA mostly) and developed a breakthrough watch for under $150 with exactly 51 parts. It makes watch nerds orgasm.
It is an automatic movement with 51 parts vs 200-600 on 5 layers held by one screw. It is anti-magnetic using a new metallurgical alloy. It has a 90 hour power reserve vs 40 hr even on their high end Omegas. It has a 30 year life expectancy with zero maintenance vs service every 3-4 years on a regular watch. And it is 100% swiss made using robotics vs hand made. They did all of this in a $150 kid's watch just to prove it can be done and to rub it in the nose of their competitors. There are watches 9,10 times this cost that do not have these features. It is a completely novel and technically innovative manufacturing. If you appreciate watches, you have to be in awe of it's complex simplicity.
This proves to me, they're innovating. The press is calling it "SWATCH the empire strikes back" Indeed, they are.
I didn't know the Swatch Group included Omega and Blancpain. I was thinking of only the Swatch Branded watches, most of which seem cheap, fun, and disposable. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that but it seems like Apple aims higher... but you are right about Apple products being disposable by nature. I guess that's true of all tech. It's just hard to think of a new rMBP or a Mac Pro as being disposable
