Swatch Prepares to Go Head-to-Head With Apple Watch

Sigma4Life said:
All of these non-tech watch companies are going to be in for a huge shock when they try to make smart watches. It took Apple billions of dollars and several years to build the Apple Watch, yet Swatch is going to build one equally as good in 3 months? Riiiiiiiight. Apple Watch will embarrass smart watch competitors for the next 2 years before they finally start to catch up.
Click to expand...

Sorry? Billions? I don't think so. And several years because they weren't in the watch business to begin with.

Apple's core advantage here is the software vs the typical watch manufacturer.

As for "embarrassing" other competitors - I'm not sure if you're including those watches that are Android Wear or not. Ultimately - it's not going to be an embarrassment for them. So far, the software and functionality is pretty on par. Apple might have some spec advantages and/or features not in Android wear - but it remains to be seen how useful they actually are.

Personally - I think the market itself will be interesting to watch.

It could be argued that those who want a high priced watch with minimal "smartness" might choose one from a watch manufacturer vs buying one with tons of bells and whistles from Apple.

The future isn't written yet. That being said - let me not be misunderstood. I think Apple is going to be just fine in this market.
 
Rogifan said:
So all depends how they define "smart". What would solar be able to power?
Click to expand...

Well so far solar batteries in watches are used to support very low power needs. Not sure if solar batteries would power a full Smart Watch but how else would Swatch be able to have a Smart Watch that doesn't require charging it's batteries?
 
keysofanxiety said:
'billions of dollars'
'several years'

Far from it. Even in the keynote, Tim Cook said they'd just been working on it for about 6 months. And if you really think the Apple Watch is the result of billions of dollars, you must be easily impressed. The iPhone was billions of dollars and several years. The Apple Watch is not.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about, rewatch the keynote because Tim said they have been working on it since 2011.
 
MacRumors said:
The Swatch device will also include a form of mobile payments baked into the watch, but as of now will function only in a select few Switzerland-based grocery stores, with the company in talks to acquire more mobile payment retailer partners.
Click to expand...
Just FYI, these select few grocery stores cover probably about 60% of the Swiss grocery market and more then 80% in the big cities.
 
Frankly I'm all for this. Apple makes its best products when it's facing fierce competition. A competing watch that has superior battery life (even if it has weaker features) will spur Apple to make improvements there... as if they're not already working on that for the next gen watch.
 
the confusion is that a "smartwatch" is watch. But if we think of it as a "wristworn computer that also gives the time", then who would be better to build one? Smartphone makers or watchmakers?

My bet is the smartphone makers. Companies like Apple will hire the people that they need from the watchmakers to make (and bring to market) an aesthetically functional wrist worn computer.

Companies like Swatch will not be able to assemble and manage technical teams to compete against Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, etc. in a short time frame. They'll either have to team up with them (eg. Swatch + LG) or acquire a company (Swatch buys Casio or smaller company).

.
 
Swatch Group has a market cap of about $13 billion and a stable of well-known brands like Tissot and Omega. Do you think they may be entering this space in the hopes of becoming an acquisition target? Apple's largest acquisition so far was Beats (though NeXT was far more important), but with roughly $130 billion after debt, they could certainly afford to do a larger acquisition at some point.

I'm not saying that they are about to do a large acquistion. I actually think it's highly unlikely, and certainly not anytime soon, but that's not to say that another player in this space (e.g. Google) might not be thinking the same thing.

----------
manu chao said:
Just FYI, these select few grocery stores cover probably about 60% of the Swiss grocery market and more then 80% in the big cities.
Click to expand...

But that's sort of like saying it works in 60% of the grocery stores in Masschusetts. Are they going to test this in Switzerland first before rolling it out worldwide?
 
rei101 said:
Any watch will look better than the Apple Watch. It looks as ridiculous as the Google Glass.

And then, you get bigger iPhones because the regular ones are too tiny but now you want to put people to tab on such minimal screen? Not even with a stylus.

I like Swatch, I have two and they are ok with their judgement.
Click to expand...

Comparing iphone to the watch? a stylus for the apple watch? owning 2 swatch watches?....Clearly your judgement is skewed.
 
rei101 said:
Any watch will look better than the Apple Watch. It looks as ridiculous as the Google Glass.

And then, you get bigger iPhones because the regular ones are too tiny but now you want to put people to tab on such minimal screen? Not even with a stylus.
Click to expand...

ROFL.

What's more amazing us that you almost believe it yourself :D
Some have to wonder where do some people in here come from!!!
 
After reading all of the comments in this thread, one thing seems painfully obvious: apparently, NONE of you read the actual article. You read the Cliff's Notes version (which itself was a poor synopsis and may have mislead some of you). Regarding the idea of the watch not needing to be charged, the article states:

"The device will communicate via a form of technology known as NFC and won’t have to be charged, Chief Executive Officer Nick Hayek said in an interview."

If I read this correctly, using NFC will be a low power form of communication between the watch and whichever phone it's paired to.

One thing I'm not clear on is whether the watch will be compatible with iPhones as well as Windows and Android as the remainder of the same paragraph states:

"The Swatch smartwatch will also let consumers make mobile payments and work with Windows and Android software, he said."

However, my guess is that it will be cross-platform as long as the phone is equipped with NFC.

Also, for those of you pontificating about Swatch's lack of technological and software expertise, again, it is amazing how much more enlightened one can be if they read a bit further:

"Swatch has decades of experience developing technology that might go into a smartwatch, such as long-lasting batteries so thin they’re bendable. The company’s Tissot brand has made watches with touch-screens since 1999 that now offer an altimeter, a compass, and sensors to record a diver’s descent."

So, to say Swatch has no idea what they are doing or no chance to compete is a statement made out of pure ignorance. I'm looking forward to wearing my Apple Watch this spring, but when I see such uninformed commentary, I felt it was only fair to at least clear up some obvious misinformation.

Again, shame on you if you did not read the article. And I am extremely disappointed in Mitchel Broussard for such a poor summary. Many facts were left out.
 
ArtOfWarfare said:
Is it possible to make an antenna that's so power efficient you could just have a square inch solar panel generate enough power for it? If so, I would say that's a set up that allows you to connect to the Internet without a charge.
Click to expand...

I believe "charge" was used as a monetary term. Meaning it doesn't cost anything to connect to the internet.
 
HenryDJP said:
Chances are it won't be any of the above and there's a 99.999999% chance Apple will scare people into buying Applecare. This is one of the reasons I am not interested in such a premium watch and I will continue to stick to G-Shock. Bumps, knocks, swimming and the like will not hurt the G-Shock. Sure it's not a Smart Watch, but be prepared to pay a king's ransom for total cost of ownership with the AppleWatch.
Click to expand...

FIY the Apple Watch "normal" is 316L stainless steel, just like any other watch, and has a sapphire screen, just like the best watches, because it's the closest you can get to scratch-proof glass without it being diamond.

And FIY, stainless steel can be scratched, of corse, but can be polished back again to look exactly like new.
 
Watch companies are not software companies

Companies trying to break into (or just stay in) the smartphone market found out that without vast software expertise, experience and investment, their UI and their app ecosystems turned out to be comparative cr*p. Blackberry and Nokia fired the bulk of their older slower software teams for poor results. Palm, with an over 10 year and very successful head start at mobile software, failed to keep up in their move to WebOS smartphones. Even Samsung and Amazon's efforts (with their non-small software employment numbers) at "improving" smartphone software aren't looking too successful.

These watch companies will end up in the same boat. I can't see Swatch competing to hire and retain large numbers of top notch software and UI design people. Only Apple and Google have the many 100's of top software engineers and UI experts needed, with maybe Pebble filling out the last remaining spot above the 1% of mud.

The rest of the watch makers will be doing the equivalent of bringing PalmOS/PocketPC apps to an iOS 8 app fight.
 
Last edited:
I'm not at all interested in a "smart watch". I don't need my watch to have a touch screen and run apps. A watch that can provide basic integration with my iPhone is all I need. For example, it could report my heart rate to Health Kit. It could use the phone's GPS to tell me how far I've run. It could let me play/pause/skip music tracks, etc. But I really don't need or want it to do anything else.

And, I want it to be round. And light. And not cost $350 or more.
 
HenryDJP said:
Well so far solar batteries in watches are used to support very low power needs. Not sure if solar batteries would power a full Smart Watch but how else would Swatch be able to have a Smart Watch that doesn't require charging it's batteries?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I just know these stories come out and the real thing never matches the rumor mill. Like what Mont Blanc did. The knee jerk reaction based on the renders was "this is how you do a smart watch Apple". Until of course we got the first hands-on report that showed a bulky fit with a low res display (the original render showed a beautiful retina like B&W display).
 
KPOM said:
Swatch Group has a market cap of about $13 billion and a stable of well-known brands like Tissot and Omega. Do you think they may be entering this space in the hopes of becoming an acquisition target? Apple's largest acquisition so far was Beats (though NeXT was far more important), but with roughly $130 billion after debt, they could certainly afford to do a larger acquisition at some point.

I'm not saying that they are about to do a large acquistion. I actually think it's highly unlikely, and certainly not anytime soon, but that's not to say that another player in this space (e.g. Google) might not be thinking the same thing.
Click to expand...

No, I think they are entering the space to remain relevant to a younger generation that doesn't value fine or otherwise watches the same as previous ones.

If they wanted to get bought out they only need to go to Goldman Sachs, not produce a risky smart watch. They already own some of the finest brands on the planet. That's what gives them buyout cache. I don't think they want to be part of Apple or MS or Google or Amazon or whoever. They just want to have a product that has mass appeal to 21st century consumers.
 
Some unusually high confidence in Apples 1.0 attempt at a watch in here.

Suddenly because Apple makes this minimally functional, bulbous iPhone accessory, no watchmaker knows anything about making things people want on their wrist and what works and doesn't work. Because none of them have R&D departments of their own and have ever experimented with anything ever, until Apple came along with this.

Ok.
 
ThunderSkunk said:
Some unusually high confidence in Apples 1.0 attempt at a watch in here.
Click to expand...

Nope. I have confidence in Apple's 2.0. iPhoneOS 1.0 was only for them to learn and use as a base to develop iPhoneOS 2.0 with a real SDK. But even iPhoneOS 1.0 scared most of the competition into a downward spiral in their failed attempts to match it (except for Google, who manage to almost keep in the same neighborhood). Similar with MacOS 1.0 (and many other odd numbers of that era before OSX), which was really buggy and incomplete.

So maybe I'll get a 1.0 in hopes of upgrading it (or trading up) to a 2.0.
 
These watch companies are grossly underestimating how important software is in a smartwatch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top