TAG Heuer to Combine Swiss Watch Expertise With Technology in 'Different Craftsmanship'

[TallManNY]

A watch, even a very nice watch, is still just a watch. The Apple Watch is body technology disguised as a watch, with all the possibilities this implies. Whether the luxury watch makers have anything to fear from Apple remains to be seen, but it does seem clear that the two segments only incidentally overlap in the longer run.

And these companies aren't just preparing to compete against watch 1.0, they are preparing to compete against 5.0 a decade from now. Design is where they can make their mark. The tech might be impossible for them now, but perhaps with some practice they can get an android wear to be integrated into one of their classic designs.

 

[Funduro]

Swiss watch prices

Switch watch prices got a whole lot more expensive since SNB unlocked their currency cap.

 

[joneill55]

Like most good companies, they have probably done their homework and concluded that either; they see smart watches as a treat or they want to be a part of a new segment in addition to what they produce now.

Bingo.........we have a winner!

 

[peteo]

Love how he does a complete 180

early critic of the Apple Watch, saying Apple's wearable effort looked like it was designed by "a student in their first trimester"

Now he says:

"It’s a fantastic product, an incredible achievement"

and this is even before the product is released. Can't people just wait until its out, and try before they comment on it?

 

[extricated]

I have long admired Tag Heuer watches and often thought about purchasing one, but the price had always been a drawback. It’s interesting (to me) that I am now looking very hard at the upcoming Apple Watch and the price isn’t bothering me too much. I’m not pitting one against the other, but there is a degree of functionality to the Apple Watch that is very appealing.

 

[iSee]

I don't know why these Swiss watch companies even care about developing smart watches. They don't need too. The product they produce is something completely different.

I think it is potentially a huge opportunity for them.

Watches seem to be something people have become less and less interested in and even though the high-end is insulated from the vagaries of mass market trends to some degree, it has to be pinching them, especially long-term.

But with Apple's entry into to market, there's suddenly a lot of focus on watch-wearing. And Apple is also selling the idea that smart watches can be beautifully crafted, fashionable, artistic objects.

The great Swiss watchmakers have to be thinking, "Hey, who can do high-end, beautifully crafted, fashoinable, artistic objects better than we can? If Apple gets more people to be interested in wearing watches, more people will also come to the high-end. If we make smart watches that retain our high standards and reputation, then we will have the cream of the market that Apple (and others) is spending so much money creating.

Conversely, they could just keep on as they are. There won't be a lot of overlap between what they do and what Apple and other tech companies do, so they would probably be largely unaffected. But it seems like there will just be fewer and fewer people around that will ever even aspire to own one of their watches if they do that. Long-term, they might just slowly fade away to the point where traditional fine mechanical watches are of interest to only a few eccentric rich people (some would say that's where they are now).

 

[2bikes]

Bingo.........we have a winner!

Oh man... I have been waiting for this moment for a long time!!

 

[ssspinball]

The absolute last thing I'd want from any "luxury" product is to have it come connected to an advertising company right out of the box.

 

[IJ Reilly]

And these companies aren't just preparing to compete against watch 1.0, they are preparing to compete against 5.0 a decade from now. Design is where they can make their mark. The tech might be impossible for them now, but perhaps with some practice they can get an android wear to be integrated into one of their classic designs.

Hybridizing classic watch designs with third-party tech doesn't seem like the holy grail of wearable technology. Apple's long term game plan is probably deeper than that.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Love how he does a complete 180

Normal stuff. Apple does it too. From "who wants video on an iPod?" to many others. Here's a good summary of some...
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/19/technology/steve-jobs-apple/index.html
and here's Tim Cook talking about how Jobs could completely flip flop in a single day...
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Tim-Cook-says-Steve-Jobs-taught-him-about-flip-flopping_id30702

Apple ridiculed bigger-screen iPhones before they rolled out their own. And they ridiculed tablets smaller than 9.7" as unusable without sandpaper for sanding down fingertips until they rolled out the Mini. Once Apple launched bigger-screen phones or smaller tablets, the ridiculing points were forgotten. Normal stuff by both competitors and Apple.

 

[hank moody]

im curious with this TAG's watch.

 

[nazaar]

Tag you're too late, stop reacting. You should have innovated years ago.

 

[Robert.Walter]

TAG needs a new CEO with a coherent vision.

First he blasts the Watch then gets all smarmy over it.

Then tries to carve out history and future niches to be occupied by his and apple's products respectively.

I bet he's not sur if he is talking about buying the engines from silicon valley or selling his bits and pieces to them as a sub supplier.

If he is not already a sub supplier to apple he's gonna be a hurtin' because apple doesn't need him for components and it's not going to let him dilute its brand or experience by selling him engines.

I feel kinda sorry for him as I think this putz is toast but the realization of this is sinking in very slowly.

According to kuebler-Ross, I think he is at the end of stage 1 and entering stage 2. Expect stage 3 around end of March however.

----------

Normal stuff. Apple does it too. From "who wants video on an iPod?" to many others. Here's a good summary of some...
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/19/technology/steve-jobs-apple/index.html
and here's Tim Cook talking about how Jobs could completely flip flop in a single day...
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Tim-Cook-says-Steve-Jobs-taught-him-about-flip-flopping_id30702

Apple ridiculed bigger-screen iPhones before they rolled out their own. And they ridiculed tablets smaller than 9.7" as unusable without sandpaper for sanding down fingertips until they rolled out the Mini. Once Apple launched bigger-screen phones or smaller tablets, the ridiculing points were forgotten. Normal stuff by both competitors and Apple.

Of course. A salesman sells what he has while he develops a competitive product or strategy. Sadly, it seems TAG has neither atm.

 

[TallManNY]

Normal stuff. Apple does it too. From "who wants video on an iPod?" to many others. Here's a good summary of some...
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/19/technology/steve-jobs-apple/index.html
and here's Tim Cook talking about how Jobs could completely flip flop in a single day...
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Tim-Cook-says-Steve-Jobs-taught-him-about-flip-flopping_id30702

Apple ridiculed bigger-screen iPhones before they rolled out their own. And they ridiculed tablets smaller than 9.7" as unusable without sandpaper for sanding down fingertips until they rolled out the Mini. Once Apple launched bigger-screen phones or smaller tablets, the ridiculing points were forgotten. Normal stuff by both competitors and Apple.

Also, sometimes people and companies are just wrong. It isn't hypocrisy it is just an inability to correctly predict the future.
I've said personally that the phablets aren't an optimal size. But I like my 6. I think the 6+ is too big. But I have friends who have it and they all say I'm just simply wrong. They say that if I had gotten the 6+ I would like the screen size. I think I wouldn't. For now we won't know for sure.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Of course. A salesman sells what he has while he develops a competitive product or strategy. Sadly, it seems TAG has neither atm.

Apple hasn't sold 1 watch yet. Tag has built a successful company selling market desirable watches since 1860. I for one will wait and see how well Apple does in this niche. I think it will sell pretty well to the base of people that frequent this site but I have some doubts that the masses will be as enthusiastic.

I personally think the Apple watch is cool & all but I worked several years within the watch industry. All of the watchmakers would love a "one size/shape fits all" model but it was diversity (of design/shape/colors/styles/faces) that motivate sales to the masses. In other words, consumers didn't want their watch to look just like everyone else's. I'm not that convinced that anything like the iPhone or iPad adoption is going to repeat with this watch. iPhone was relatively unique and iPad was almost entirely unique. Watches are well-established... for more than 100 years. Consumers are used to a wide variety of watch designs.

Similarly, one of the business faults with iPad is that updating is not as rapid as iPhone. In other words, people are sticking with an iPad model for longer than they'll stick with an iPhone model. People who spend pretty good money on a watch are somewhat conditioned for it to last for a LONG time too... sometimes a decade or more... especially if a watch is considered "premium." As such, I suspect the watch upgrade cycle will be slower than the iPad upgrade cycle. Maybe there will be a flurry of initial sales for all those who want to be "first!" but I doubt a watch can get the same (masses- not people here) consumer enthusiasm to upgrade in a year as an iPhone or the same (masses) enthusiasm to upgrade in a couple of years as an iPad.

Even HERE, where one can find some of the most passionate Apple fans, go back to when the early rumors were posted about an Apple watch and one can see lots of "us" finding fault with the very idea mostly revolving around how our phones are always with us so we can get anything and everything intended to be accomplished with this watch on our phones. Personally, that still makes sense to me. Now that the Watch has been converted from rumor to a real Apple product, our collective spin is building up our arguments for why one needs one (and doing a great job as usual) but it still comes back to having to have that iPhone in proximity and having everything within it that can be repackaged/repurposed on this screen on our wrist. One might say, is it really that hard to pull the iPhone out of our pocket to get the time, see a notification and so on? If not here, imagine the less Apple-biased masses trying to rationalize the Watch in volumes that make it a next big thing on par with iPhone or iPad. For me, that's harder to imagine.

We'll all see soon enough. Since I own a lot of Apple stuff, I'll hope it does well but I'm not personally pumped about it anywhere nearly as much as when there were iPod 1, iPhone 1 or iPad 1 rumors flying. I hope the reality of it being released in the wild surprises me.

 

[Kabeyun]

Apple's "Watch" could suck because it forces the user to fixate for extended periods on a tiny screen and it will need charging every day.

The goal for a "connected watch" should be glancing at your watch and self-charging. "Traditional" watch makers can add bluetooth notifications and still maintain self-charging functionality.

So a watch-sized notification-showing screen is good, but only if you glance at it. Apple Watch will suck because you'll fixate on the notifications instead of glance at them. A non-Apple connected watch will not suck because it will feature a glance-only screen.

Did I get that right?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Also, sometimes people and companies are just wrong. It isn't hypocrisy it is just an inability to correctly predict the future.

I agree. And I wasn't trying to imply hypocrisy, just point out that Apple does the same thing the guy to which I was responding was noting about the Tag CEO. Both certainly can be wrong- and are at times- and both can take a strategy of putting down something new while they don't have anything to directly compete and then dropping those arguments when they do have something. As I said, it's normal... for both Apple and Apple competitors.

 

[xDKP]

Even if this not a treat, if Apple makes it cool to wear a watch again, they can profit from that since well, they make watches (even if not smart watches).

So, either they profit directly, or profit through an expanded market for their main products.

Sorry mate, in what world has it not been cool wearing a watch? I don't know about you, but I wear a Swiss timepiece every single day, and I know a LOT of people doing the same.

 

[Col4bin]

Clearly the Swiss watch manufacturer's have taken notice of what happened to RIM when they sat on their hands once the iPhone launched in 2007. (We all know how iPhone eroded RIM's smartphone stranglehold to the point of oblivion.) So whether the Swiss' new smartwatch capabilities will be successful of not, it's important that they at least have some plan in place in case Apple does it again.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I don't know why these Swiss watch companies even care about developing smart watches. They don't need too. The product they produce is something completely different.

Clearly there's a lot you don't know. But they are worried because luxury analog watches are a stagnant business who demographic is increasingly decreasing. Draw an high end watch brands sales on on a graph and it's not going to show growth. The Swiss watchmakers are learning they need to expand their market to a younger market the same way BMW, Merc, and Audi did when they pushed out entry level models aimed at post-college graduates. Many "purists" would tell you that the BMW 1 and 2 series; the Audi A3, and the Merc CLA are not "real" examples of those makers, just cheap wannabes. No matter, they are helping to create the next generation of "loyal" customers for those brands amid high competition in the $30K space.

Basically what you propose is for them to sit on their laurels. That's always been a poor business model. Ask 1990's Kodak or Sony.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Apple hasn't sold 1 watch yet. Tag has built a successful company selling market desirable watches since 1860. I for one will wait and see how well Apple does in this niche. I think it will sell pretty well to the base of people that frequent this site but I have some doubts that the masses will be as enthusiastic.

You can't gage much by the reaction of posters to this site. When the iPad came out the number of critical comments here were legion. It was "just a big iPod" and was destined to fail. Even the name was claimed to be a major liability. And that was after it was released. Likewise, much of what we are hearing today about the Apple Watch isn't even informed speculation.

Apple's been working on this project for years. I very much doubt that they haven't thought out answers to many of the questions people seem to have today. We will know when we see it, maybe. But you could also bet your last dollar that the critics here won't be silenced no matter how those questions are answered when we can actually buy one.

 

[cocky jeremy]

I don't know why these Swiss watch companies even care about developing smart watches. They don't need too. The product they produce is something completely different.

Easy. Nobody wears two watches. Every smart watch that sells is one less sale for them.

 

[macduke]

In this week's Bloomberg interview, Biver recognizes the technological shortcomings of the Swiss watch industry, which lacks the communications and hardware background to produce a smartwatch. Instead, TAG Heuer will develop its smartwatch using a "different craftsmanship" that merges the mechanical know-how of the Swiss watch makers with the technology expertise of Silicon Valley. Biver earlier confirmed TAG Heuer was looking to work with technology companies on its smartwatch device and told Bloomberg in his latest interview that the company will reveal these partnerships in the next six weeks. Google and Intel are among the companies rumored to be collaborating with the luxury watch maker.

This guy is right about them not being able to deliver the software. But here's the deal: Apple is getting better at watch design faster than Tag Heuer is getting better at software design. If Tag thinks that Android is where the luxury market is at, then they're kidding themselves. iOS has always been the higher-end. Sure, that's not always the case (like everything in life), but it usually is. Android has these huge market share numbers, but Apple makes all the money and users buy more apps on iOS because those users have money to spend. The vast majority of Android users around the world are using free on contract crap phones. Higher end Galaxy type models are not the majority, not even close, and are even on the decline if you look at Samsung's latest numbers.

 

[tonyy]

Easy. Nobody wears two watches. Every smart watch that sells is one less sale for them.

You are correct that no one wears two watches at a time but everyone I know owns two or more. Who says someone can't wear a watch for dressy occasions? Wear one for casual occasions? And guess what.. For fitness? (Apple Watch).

Most owners of true high end watches own multiple watches for different purposes and the Apple Watch isn't going to all of a sudden change that.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You can't gage much by the reaction of posters to this site. When the iPad came out the number of critical comments here were legion. It was "just a big iPod" and was destined to fail. Even the name was claimed to be a major liability. And that was after it was released. Likewise, much of what we are hearing today about the Apple Watch isn't even informed speculation.

Apple's been working on this project for years. I very much doubt that they haven't thought out answers to many of the questions people seem to have today. We will know when we see it, maybe. But you could also bet your last dollar that the critics here won't be silenced no matter how those questions are answered when we can actually buy one.

It goes the other way too though: for every Apple critic here, there seems to be 3-5 guys who will take the pro-side. Sure, there were critics of iPod 1, iPhone 1 and iPad 1 but they were practically drowned out by the overwhelming gush of the "shut up and take my money" crowd.

The point I was trying to make is that this crowd here is generally positive to very positive on anything and everything from Apple (no surprise, it's Mac rumors). But (to my subjective view anyway) even this crowd doesn't seem to burn as hot for this watch as they seemed to burn for iPhone 1 or iPad 1. IMO, it seems to be something of a split among this crowd. Some seem to see it as world-shaking, going-to-crush-all-watchmakers, etc while others wonder if it will flop or mostly disappoint. I don't see it necessarily as only the Apple critics in that latter camp. Instead, I think it's just wound up in that idea of if the iPhone can do almost everything the Watch can do and you have to have the iPhone with you anyway, do you actually want or need a Watch too?

It seemed much easier when the next big thing was an iPhone 1 or iPad 1. The Watch seems to be hunting (harder) for the answer to why we really should want one. What I was trying to say was if THIS crowd is generally a bit shaky on the answer to that question, the masses are probably going to be at least as shaky (probably much more so)... AND they lack the Apple bias on par with this crowd. Even if everyone here (and any "fans" not here) ALL buy the Watch, we're barely a drop in the bucket for the volume of sales necessary to make the Watch seem like a hit along the lines of an iPhone 1 or iPad 1.

AND THEN there's the whole issue of (even us) faulting the slower (than iPhone) upgrade cycle of iPad when, at least in my own experience, "premium" watches are usually a purchase where the consumer expects to use the same watch for many years (longer than some perceived iPad renewal cycle). Watches like Tag and similar are often 7-10+ year watches, not something to be replaced next year or in 2 years.