Tag Heuer Partnering With Google and Intel to Build Connected Smartwatch

[ninethirty]

I'm quite familiar with Apple's design standards. Believe me, I won't be giving up my Daytona for a mini iPhone to put on my wrist.

I think there's a good chance you'll be surprised by the standard of Apple's engineering, and the watch's in hand feel as a quality item.

----------



The Monaco seems the logical choice. I'm guessing they are pushing based upon sales figures and trying to replicate their best selling piece. This would appear to show a lack of understanding of the technology and human interfaces, so it shall be interesting to see how one interacts with, and the success of this device.

Given it cannot be labelled Swiss made, and uses different mechanics to a Swiss watch (which is the compelling sales point) it will be interesting to see how well this sells. My feeling is it will need to be significantly less expensive than their other time pieces, but more expensive than an Apple Watch, and almost certainly shall be nowhere near as good. Therefore buyers of this piece shall most likely look like chumps with more money than sense.

 

[finnns2000]

Lol. No, no auction pieces. I'm all about modern Rolexes. Just love how tough they are and how they can take a beating and still look great. I've had a spree on buying and trying most of the current stainless lineup. And since you asked this question this morning, I looked back through my Instagram feed to take a tally...it's actually much worse than $60K.

Past 12 months
-9 Rolexes (all new from dealer)
-2 Panerai Radiomir 1940 (both new)
-1 Tudor Ranger (new)

If you go back another 6 months, add 2 Omegas (used) and a Tudor Pelagos (new) to it.

Now don't keep every watch. Some I'm buying sight unseen and realize I don't like once I have them in hand (my dealer is out of state). So I take a hit on some that I turn. I usually keep 3-6 in the collection at any time. Right now it's 3, and I'm trying to figure out if I want to add the new rose gold Yachtmaster on rubber strap introduced at Basel this week, and the blue Tudor Pelagos. Definitely on the Pelagos, but not sure about the YM.

Thank goodness you're not trading stocks like this, or at least I hope not. lol

Is there any reason you don't go long on watches? I'd want to keep my favorites forever, or at least have them passed down.

 

[chris975d]

Thank goodness you're not trading stocks like this, or at least I hope not. lol



Is there any reason you don't go long on watches? I'd want to keep my favorites forever, or at least have them passed down.

It's a hobby. Hobbies are money pits. My other two are custom pocket knives and handguns to a lesser extent. Both expensive...custom knives especially. A non knife person can't fathom a $1000 or more pocket knife you carry and use every day.

I do keep certain pieces, but like to try new from time to time. It does help that my rolex dealer is a close friend, so I'm getting deals on them the average buyer can't come close to (rolex heavily polices the discounting on their watches). So I don't lose a lot if I flip a watch, if I lose at all. But I'm settling into what I like and will keep for a long time. Unless they bring out a must have for me like they did this week at Basel!

 

[Xtremjeepn]

I don't think it's so much about Apple competing directly with luxury watchmakers that will hurt them; it's the fact that there's only room on your wrist for one watch

All wristwatch companies are scared because they know that people will not wear two watches. So, if people get addicted to getting their notifications from their smart watch, the wristwatch will get pushed out.

Your watch isn't going to replace your phone. There's just no way no how. Not anytime in the foreseeable future. Luxury watch makers aren't scared, and they don't need to be.

This could be a valid concern...IF smartwatches take off. But, that's a long time from now. Very few people in the foreseeable future are going to take of a Rolex, shelve it, and wear an Apple watch instead full time. Watch enthusiasts already have multiple watches they own that have to compete for wrist time, and those owners (myself included) rotate them based on event/occasion/activity. And who's to say that the smartwatch doesn't remain in the realm of workout-related gear, anyway?

The big Swiss companies have weathered attacks before that "experts" thought would surely do them in...namely the Quartz revolution in the '70s-'80s. Cheap, accurate watches that people were saying made mechanical watches obsolete. What happened?

I understand what you're saying. But what I'm not sure you're getting is that there has always (in my lifetime at least) been a competition for wrist space. We don't pick and buy $10,000 watches cause they are the "best at what they do"...hell, there are $30 Quartz watches that tell time, date, day of the week far more accurately. So we aren't buying them solely for their "utility" .

And as it stands right now, and for years to come, a smart watch isn't a necessity.

I'm afraid the Watch will ruin my watch hobby for this reason. 😱

I love my huge old mechanical watches..........but can see a very practical use cases for the Watch that could cause me to wear it more than I would really like to. Forcing my nicer time pieces to collect more dust.

It's true that previous "watch tech" hasn't replaced the good old mechanical watches to this point. For example, the reason the more accurate cheap Quartz watches never replaced more expensive but less accurate mechanical watches is because in daily function the accuracy was "close enough" and people preferred a nicer watch.


Remember that watches themselves were "high technology"! A way to tell time while on the move. Taking a clock no making it portable.

This was back in a time when knowing what time it was was about all you needed to know in daily life. When to show up for work or a meeting, etc.

Today is a different world. One where communications and health tracking are vastly more important. Tasks currently being done by smart phones.

This has left the wrist "open" for jewelry and basic time telling. I consider it far more respectful to glance at a watch during a meeting than to turn on and check your phone.

The threat the Watch brings to the watch market isn't one of competing jewelry, it's that it might actually have real world usefulness that would prevent the wearing of another time piece. Usefulness that no other watch tech has introduced before.

Part of the reason jewelry quality watches have been so popular is because there is has been nothing else worth taking up the space on the wrist.



For me, here is where I see the use case and the threat the Watch presents to my watch hobby.

I either ride a motorcycle, mountian bike or drive an old sports car (no place to set a smartphone so its in a pocket). All of these modes of transportation make it hard/dangerous to whip out a smart phone and check it at a traffic light, etc. Often times on the bike or motorcycle the phone isn't in a location where you would feel a notification come in.

With the Watch, you could feel the notification and take an easy glance to see if it's important without trying to dig out a phone.

Then while sitting in meetings, I hate having a smart phone sitting on the desk. I consider it disrespectful. However, an watch might be a great way to get/check the information needed quickly without having to pull out a phone. Even if it's just a quick glance between the meetings. Or setting up tactile reminders of meeting intervals to keep you on track. A slight vibe to the wrist could mark the halfway point or "5 more minutes" so you know to wrap up.

This could be especially handy during presentations.


Maybe you arrange a deal with a business partner/friend that he/she will "alert you" during a banquet dinner that the food or guest speaker is ready. So you do your toast/speech until you feel the notification on your wrist and then introduce what is coming next.


The possibilities are endless here.


When it comes to recreation. A Watch would be far easier to check/feel notifications while skiing/snowboarding. Pushing back a cup is far easier than digging out a phone, especially on a chair lift!😱

I think the Watch might actually extend my phone upgrade cycle. My phones take a beating from constantly being checked in all sorts of non phone friendly conditions. Having the phone on you at at the ready constantly wears them out. Having the Watch could allow me to put my phone in a sleeve to protect it more, bury it in a safe spot in a backpack, leave it on a nearby desk, workbench, counter, etc.

As I get older and want to track my princess more, it's more important to me to see what my real activity is than to wear jewelry.


So in many ways I could see the watch paying for itself and being too useful to free up the room for my real watches.


I think the Watch is ugly......but until companies like TAG and other watchmakers bring the functionality in a better looking package.....I'm afraid the Watch might win for the space on my wrist. 🙁

 

[chris975d]

I'm afraid the Watch will ruin my watch hobby for this reason. 😱



I love my huge old mechanical watches..........but can see a very practical use cases for the Watch that could cause me to wear it more than I would really like to. Forcing my nicer time pieces to collect more dust.



It's true that previous "watch tech" hasn't replaced the good old mechanical watches to this point. For example, the reason the more accurate cheap Quartz watches never replaced more expensive but less accurate mechanical watches is because in daily function the accuracy was "close enough" and people preferred a nicer watch.





Remember that watches themselves were "high technology"! A way to tell time while on the move. Taking a clock no making it portable.



This was back in a time when knowing what time it was was about all you needed to know in daily life. When to show up for work or a meeting, etc.



Today is a different world. One where communications and health tracking are vastly more important. Tasks currently being done by smart phones.



This has left the wrist "open" for jewelry and basic time telling. I consider it far more respectful to glance at a watch during a meeting than to turn on and check your phone.



The threat the Watch brings to the watch market isn't one of competing jewelry, it's that it might actually have real world usefulness that would prevent the wearing of another time piece. Usefulness that no other watch tech has introduced before.



Part of the reason jewelry quality watches have been so popular is because there is has been nothing else worth taking up the space on the wrist.







For me, here is where I see the use case and the threat the Watch presents to my watch hobby.



I either ride a motorcycle, mountian bike or drive an old sports car (no place to set a smartphone so its in a pocket). All of these modes of transportation make it hard/dangerous to whip out a smart phone and check it at a traffic light, etc. Often times on the bike or motorcycle the phone isn't in a location where you would feel a notification come in.



With the Watch, you could feel the notification and take an easy glance to see if it's important without trying to dig out a phone.



Then while sitting in meetings, I hate having a smart phone sitting on the desk. I consider it disrespectful. However, an watch might be a great way to get/check the information needed quickly without having to pull out a phone. Even if it's just a quick glance between the meetings. Or setting up tactile reminders of meeting intervals to keep you on track. A slight vibe to the wrist could mark the halfway point or "5 more minutes" so you know to wrap up.



This could be especially handy during presentations.





Maybe you arrange a deal with a business partner/friend that he/she will "alert you" during a banquet dinner that the food or guest speaker is ready. So you do your toast/speech until you feel the notification on your wrist and then introduce what is coming next.





The possibilities are endless here.





When it comes to recreation. A Watch would be far easier to check/feel notifications while skiing/snowboarding. Pushing back a cup is far easier than digging out a phone, especially on a chair lift!😱



I think the Watch might actually extend my phone upgrade cycle. My phones take a beating from constantly being checked in all sorts of non phone friendly conditions. Having the phone on you at at the ready constantly wears them out. Having the Watch could allow me to put my phone in a sleeve to protect it more, bury it in a safe spot in a backpack, leave it on a nearby desk, workbench, counter, etc.



As I get older and want to track my princess more, it's more important to me to see what my real activity is than to wear jewelry.





So in many ways I could see the watch paying for itself and being too useful to free up the room for my real watches.





I think the Watch is ugly......but until companies like TAG and other watchmakers bring the functionality in a better looking package.....I'm afraid the Watch might win for the space on my wrist. 🙁

I could see that, IF those things are useful or of interest to someone. They aren't to me. That's what my phone is for, and the phone will always be better FOR ME at all of those things. I don't want that stuff condensed down to a 1.5" square screen. There's a reason I bought (and begged Apple to make) a 5"+ screen. I personally don't need that on my wrist. The way the Apple watch would be useful to me would be if it was a totally standalone device that could sync back to the phone when brought back into range. That would be useful for me when working out. To track my stats, vitals, mileage, whatever and then sync it back to a more full featured app on my phone when brought back into range. Then at least I'd have a use for the Apple watch (working out). As it stands right now, to do what I want it to do, I have to have my phone on me as well when working out. Does me no good. It's not much more than a small wireless/remote screen for my iPhone. That's pointless to me. That's not going to kick a real watch off my wrist.

 

[Keirasplace]

I could see that, IF those things are useful or of interest to someone. They aren't to me. That's what my phone is for, and the phone will always be better FOR ME at all of those things. I don't want that stuff condensed down to a 1.5" square screen. There's a reason I bought (and begged Apple to make) a 5"+ screen. I personally don't need that on my wrist. The way the Apple watch would be useful to me would be if it was a totally standalone device that could sync back to the phone when brought back into range. That would be useful for me when working out. To track my stats, vitals, mileage, whatever and then sync it back to a more full featured app on my phone when brought back into range. Then at least I'd have a use for the Apple watch (working out). As it stands right now, to do what I want it to do, I have to have my phone on me as well when working out. Does me no good. It's not much more than a small wireless/remote screen for my iPhone. That's pointless to me. That's not going to kick a real watch off my wrist.

You need a GPS on you when working out?

It has an accelerometer and heart rate monitor and music for when you work it. All of this independently.

From the Apple web site

"Accelerometer. The Apple Watch accelerometer measures your total body movement and steps to calculate the calories you burn during the activities you do throughout the day. It measures all kinds of physical movement, from simply standing up to running to catch the bus to playing with your kids"

"Heart Rate Sensor. The custom heart rate sensor in Apple Watch detects your heart rate during workouts, which helps determine your intensity level, and improves the accuracy of your active calorie burn measurements."

Syncing back when it ranges seams to be what its going to do (for the health data at least).

Not sure what your saying here.

 

[jrswizzle]

You need a GPS on you when working out?

It has an accelerometer and heart rate monitor and music for when you work it. All of this independently.

From the Apple web site

"Accelerometer. The Apple Watch accelerometer measures your total body movement and steps to calculate the calories you burn during the activities you do throughout the day. It measures all kinds of physical movement, from simply standing up to running to catch the bus to playing with your kids"

"Heart Rate Sensor. The custom heart rate sensor in Apple Watch detects your heart rate during workouts, which helps determine your intensity level, and improves the accuracy of your active calorie burn measurements."

Syncing back when it ranges seams to be what its going to do (for the health data at least).

Not sure what your saying here.

They also connect to each other over WiFi - so I'm guessing theoretically, if you are at a Gym with WiFi and both the Watch and iPhone are connected to it, you could leave your phone in the bag and just bring your watch around with you.

Someone can either confirm or deny the above - I'm simply speculating based on the fact they've said it will sync up over Bluetooth or WiFi so the Watch and iPhone don't have to be close to each other (they used your home as an example saying your phone could be in the other room and still sync up with your watch).

Doesn't work if you're going for a run in your neighborhood like I do, but the heart rate monitor, step counter and music are all I'd need while running anyhow.

 

[chris975d]

You need a GPS on you when working out?

It has an accelerometer and heart rate monitor and music for when you work it. All of this independently.

From the Apple web site

"Accelerometer. The Apple Watch accelerometer measures your total body movement and steps to calculate the calories you burn during the activities you do throughout the day. It measures all kinds of physical movement, from simply standing up to running to catch the bus to playing with your kids"

"Heart Rate Sensor. The custom heart rate sensor in Apple Watch detects your heart rate during workouts, which helps determine your intensity level, and improves the accuracy of your active calorie burn measurements."

Syncing back when it ranges seams to be what its going to do (for the health data at least).

Not sure what your saying here.

If I'm running prepping for a race, yeah. I like to know what my pace is, my splits at certain distances (1 mile, 5 miles, 10 miles), etc. What kind of question is that? The only way to do that now is carry the iPhone with me. But an iPhone 6+ is cumbersome to do that with. Where the Apple watch WOULD have been useful for me was if it had GPS built in, so that it could do those things for me and announce them out loud like my MapMyRun app does. No, I don't need GPS in the gym. I wouldn't even wear the watch in the gym working with weights during my powerlifting routines. Just asking for a cracked screen that way.

 

[eoblaed]

If Apple are not going after the high end Swiss market, then why has it priced the Apple Watch as a direct competitor to the pricing of the Swiss high end watch market? It has named the device 'Watch' and it has priced it at the high end of the market, it is competing with them.

Tag Heuer watches are significantly more expensive than the typical Apple Watch. Patek Philippes, even used, are tens of thousands of dollars. Apple Watches are a few hundred. A grand if you go with the SS and a fancy band. And yes, there's the 'Edition' version, but that's not where Apple is going to be making their money on this device, and clearly not the 'big push'.

Apple Watches are complex electronic PDA type proxy-interfaces to an iPhone with a bit mapped display. Swiss watches are gear driven time pieces with physical arms ... they have a classic look and no interactive interface.

If someone is motivated to purchase a high end Swiss watch, what they're looking for is something very different than an Apple Watch. And, conversely, someone that really wants an Apple Watch isn't looking for a Patek Philippe. There will be some people that want both, but that's the point, isn't it? They're two very different types of devices serving two very different sets of values.

 

[ninethirty]

There's no point in trying to make sense to any of these guys. In their mind, the Apple watch has already destroyed the Swiss watch industry, and everyone who was interested in a Rolex, or Patek Philippe, now will be buying the Apple Watch Edition. End of story.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot to add that Apple also discovered that a square shape is best for a watch, and proved to the entire watch industry that they've been doing it wrong forever.

Tag Heuer watches are significantly more expensive than the typical Apple Watch. Patek Philippes, even used, are tens of thousands of dollars. Apple Watches are a few hundred. A grand if you go with the SS and a fancy band. And yes, there's the 'Edition' version, but that's not where Apple is going to be making their money on this device, and clearly not the 'big push'.

Apple Watches are complex electronic PDA type proxy-interfaces to an iPhone with a bit mapped display. Swiss watches are gear driven time pieces with physical arms ... they have a classic look and no interactive interface.

If someone is motivated to purchase a high end Swiss watch, what they're looking for is something very different than an Apple Watch. And, conversely, someone that really wants an Apple Watch isn't looking for a Patek Philippe. There will be some people that want both, but that's the point, isn't it? They're two very different types of devices serving two very different sets of values.

 

[chris975d]

There's no point in trying to make sense to any of these guys. In their mind, the Apple watch has already destroyed the Swiss watch industry, and everyone who was interested in a Rolex, or Patek Philippe, now will be buying the Apple Watch Edition. End of story.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot to add that Apple also discovered that a square shape is best for a watch, and proved to the entire watch industry that they've been doing it wrong forever.

Haha. 🙂 Seems that way, if you listen to all the Apple defenders here. I just don't see why it's so hard to understand that the fans of mechanical watches like them because of what they are, not what they do. They already aren't the best tool for the job, but sell like hot cakes anyway. I guess people not familiar with the watch world don't realize there are months and sometimes years long waiting lists for certain models of Pateks, Rolexes, etc. Those people aren't looking for a gadget. An Apple watch will never any prestige.

I kind of equate it to the auto enthusiast world. The top of the line Corvette can now meet or in a lot of cases best most Ferraris, Lambos, Porsches. But what does the auto enthusiast with lots of money buy? Typically not a Vette.

 

[Max(IT)]

Ah, so now because I don't agree with your 'opinion' you have labelled me as 'hating all things Apple', that's a typical stereotyping blanket statement, does that then make you an Apple Fanboy who adores and loves every single thing Apple does?
I don't hate Apple, but I will argue people that think they do no wrong and they will always dominate any market they enter, ignoring the players that invented said market let alone dominate it at present.

In your case you are neither, but you seem ignorant of Google, Intel and Tag Heuer?

You stated Intel cannot match Apple's engineering talent, think about that for a second, Intel cannot match Apple's engineering talent... Intel... the one who makes all the CPU's in every single Apple Mac computer you can buy on the Apple store..

If you didn't know, Intel were only late to the mobile market, they haven't gained anything to lose yet, as you stated. They are only now gaining market if anything as more devices start to utilise their chips. I think they are much more then capable to design a chip to work in a smart watch.

And Apple is an OEM, I know what it is, Apple does not make or design all it's components.

Because this is the first time you have been accused to be an Apple haters, right ? 🙄

Your comment about tag engineers being better than Apple's, regarding a smartwatch (electronic) depicts the situation quite well. 🙄

----------

seriously?

tag better at software engineering and electrical engineering than apple?

I'd call that utterly ridiculous 😀

----------

apple didnt invent the modern smartphone, there were people before that put their phone on top of a computer 🙄

is that seriously the logic we're going by now? arent these pissing contests getting boring?



dont forget, apple will ruin the business of rolex, huehuehue.

Apple didn't invent it.
They just made a smartphone completely different and changed the market forever.
As they did in several fields.
As they are trying to do in smartwatch market.

----------

There's no point in trying to make sense to any of these guys. In their mind, the Apple watch has already destroyed the Swiss watch industry, and everyone who was interested in a Rolex, or Patek Philippe, now will be buying the Apple Watch Edition. End of story.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot to add that Apple also discovered that a square shape is best for a watch, and proved to the entire watch industry that they've been doing it wrong forever.

Why people here continue to fail to understand how different a watch and a SMARTwatch are ???

 

[Winni]

Hmm.. Lets see if it can beat Apples, don't think so.

Let's first see if Apple's forthcoming product will gain any traction and if it will become a relevant product or if will just become another so-called "hobby" as the Apple TV that never really took off.

At the moment, all we see is a multi-billion dollar corporation desperately trying to create some hype around a product category that became obsolete when mobile phones became a mass phenomenon. What makes this new product worse is the fact that it heavily relies on the smartphone in your pocket while providing nothing but exactly the same functionality that the smartphone already provides. Obviously, one of the too is entirely unnecessary.

If the Apple Watch were a complete standalone product that would make the iPhone that it accompanies obsolete, okay, I could see why some people would rather go for the watch INSTEAD of the phone.

Of course, that would not go down well with the shareholders. So Apple has to try to sell the watch as an add-on to the phone, which it simply shouldn't be. Maybe that will change with version 2.0 or 3.0 of the watch.

 

[Xtremjeepn]

Let's first see if Apple's forthcoming product will gain any traction and if it will become a relevant product or if will just become another so-called "hobby" as the Apple TV that never really took off.

Huh?

25 million units sold for an item they never really marketed is a "hobby that never really took off"?

Man, I need a hobby like that!!

http://recode.net/2015/01/27/apple-tv-hasnt-changed-in-years-but-has-sold-25-million-units-anyway/

 

[chris975d]

Huh?



25 million units sold for an item they never really marketed is a "hobby that never really took off"?



Man, I need a hobby like that!!



http://recode.net/2015/01/27/apple-tv-hasnt-changed-in-years-but-has-sold-25-million-units-anyway/

I think the previous poster is using "hobby" to describe the AppleTV because Apple themselves (maybe it was Jobs) have referred to it as such.

 

[Black Belt]

Let's just post one press release for all these watchmakers?

"Today, we announce we are taking a great mechanical watch and attaching halfassed electronics and bad programming to create something truly mediocre and mind-blowing that we would stop playing to our strengths and try to be something we are DEFINITELY not."

 

[Keirasplace]

There's no point in trying to make sense to any of these guys. In their mind, the Apple watch has already destroyed the Swiss watch industry, and everyone who was interested in a Rolex, or Patek Philippe, now will be buying the Apple Watch Edition. End of story.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot to add that Apple also discovered that a square shape is best for a watch, and proved to the entire watch industry that they've been doing it wrong forever.

The reason the initial watches were round was because they were often crude adaptation of pocket patches, especially pre 1920. But, there were high end makers making rectangle watches right from the start. During the 1920-1930s, square watches were very popular because it went with the whole Art Deco motif of the era.

So, not sure that your saying, round or square, both work as watches; a rectangle is better suited to text (that's why your Iphone scrren is not a circle... ). If there was no need for text, any shape would be suitable.

----------

Let's just post one press release for all these watchmakers?

"Today, we announce we are taking a great mechanical watch and attaching halfassed electronics and bad programming to create something truly mediocre and mind-blowing that we would stop playing to our strengths and try to be something we are DEFINITELY not."

Maybe they'Re trying to be the Ed Wood of waches... Or Manos the Hands of Fate of watches ;-).

 

[wigby]

They have to care a little bit both sell lots of product every year and have managed to create religious following.

I wouldn't call either religious but comparing Apple to Google is like comparing Apple to Microsoft. Microsoft and Google customers tend to shop based on price and ubiquity. It's reflected in the pricing of their purchases both of hardware and software and marketshare. Apple customers might have a little more money in general to spend but I would categorize them as customers that shop based on experience and fashion more than any other tech customers.

 

[MidwestMacGuy]

Desperado

This is like Louis Vuitton teaming with Walmart or Bentley teaming with Hyundai. I did not realize it was already time for the watch world to hit the panic button.

RIP

 

[apolloa]

Tag Heuer watches are significantly more expensive than the typical Apple Watch. Patek Philippes, even used, are tens of thousands of dollars. Apple Watches are a few hundred. A grand if you go with the SS and a fancy band. And yes, there's the 'Edition' version, but that's not where Apple is going to be making their money on this device, and clearly not the 'big push'.

Apple Watches are complex electronic PDA type proxy-interfaces to an iPhone with a bit mapped display. Swiss watches are gear driven time pieces with physical arms ... they have a classic look and no interactive interface.

If someone is motivated to purchase a high end Swiss watch, what they're looking for is something very different than an Apple Watch. And, conversely, someone that really wants an Apple Watch isn't looking for a Patek Philippe. There will be some people that want both, but that's the point, isn't it? They're two very different types of devices serving two very different sets of values.

I was talking of the edition Apple watch. I agree that the person who buys one will most likely have a collection of watches, but that's not to say Apple isn't going for that market of high prices watches, which when they cost as much as a car they are high end really.

 

[sparky08]

I knew it! Apple invents a new device and look at the lemmings follow!

 

[Xtremjeepn]

I knew it! Apple invents a new device and look at the lemmings follow!

This is the rub, you don't gain a following like this with bad products!

Ironically, many haters hate just to feel like part of the rebel groups and for the sake of hating.....so who is really the lemming here?

 

[kdarling]

A smartwatch can simulate a mechanical watch, along with having more functionality because it's programmable, but it cannot replace the higher end mechanical watch market.

It's like the difference between owning a real airplane and a computer with a flight simulator.

The computer can somewhat simulate flying, and can do other things the plane cannot (like send email), but there's a world of difference between the two mechanisms and the ownership of them.

 

[Xtremjeepn]

It's like the difference between owning a real airplane and a computer with a flight simulator.

I'm sorry, but this has to be the worst analogy for this I've seen yet.

A real airplane provided REAL transportation a simulator does not.

A mechanical watch and a computer watch both tell the time. Serving the same level of basic function.

....and in this case the computer watch actually delivers more functionality while your flight simulator delivers less.

 

[chris975d]

I'm sorry, but this has to be the worst analogy for this I've seen yet.



A real airplane provided REAL transportation a simulator does not.



A mechanical watch and a computer watch both tell the time. Serving the same level of basic function.



....and in this case the computer watch actually delivers more functionality while your flight simulator delivers less.

Actually, as a watch enthusiast/watch "collector", if you will, I thought the analogy was pretty good. The Apple watch is just a digital representation of a watch. It's not what we mechanical watch fans are looking for. We are looking for (because we appreciate the artistry and engineering involved) tiny little machines comprised of actual mechanical parts. And Apple watch/smart watch is just a digital simulation of that. It's not as rewarding or exciting. At least not to fans of the little tiny cases full of gears and springs. The average person is probably different. But then again, the average person doesn't care not can/will spend the money on an expensive Swiss watch. Again, like kdarling's analogy...to the average person, a flight simulator is probably "close enough" to flying a plane. But to a real pilot/flying enthusiast, it's not gonna cut it. Only the real thing would suffice.