Adrian-VTA
Global Moderator
Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 5,327
|
Post by Adrian-VTA on Mar 9, 2015 17:08:32 GMT -8
www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/apple-ceo-tim-cook-unveils-apple-watch-in-california/story-e6frgakx-1227256162353"Apple Watch is available in three collections in Australia, Apple Watch Sport will cost from $499 and $579 for 38mm and 42mm sizes while Apple Watch will sell from $799 to $1629. Pricing will depend on the watch size and chosen band.
Apple Watch Edition, crafted from custom rose or yellow 18-carat gold alloys, will sell with a recommended retail price starting from $14,000."I can't see it replacing a good dive/water resistant watch any time soon. Of course, wristwatches are now not considered a functional piece of kit. They are now considered "wearable tech". A mechanical watch, well that's the steam punkiest wearable tech of the lot - That's how younger people see it. My vote is good. It exposes a new generation to wearing watches who have traditionally just used their mobile phone to keep time. Even if a vintage/new "real" watch is just as a dress piece. What's everyone's thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 17:36:22 GMT -8
I have no use for most of the functionality and it would probably just stay on analog time most of the time. I can get that from my $20 Ramon treasures Seriously though; I think we are about to see a huge change in the 'wearable' market. I can actually see myself wearing one of these as say, opposed to a modern Seiko digital watch. I'm open to change so long as it does not obliviate history; as in the traditional mechanical or quartz analog watch.
|
|
sdoocms
Is a Permanent Fixture
Carl
Posts: 5,296
|
Post by sdoocms on Mar 9, 2015 17:37:18 GMT -8
No way, I have enough trouble reading my 4" phone! Divers rule this won't affect our hobby much!
|
|
|
Post by earthphase on Mar 9, 2015 17:53:59 GMT -8
Gonna have zero affect on the watch game as a best case scenario for Apple.
More likely to flop, big time.
|
|
trandy
Needs a Life!
Posts: 3,274
|
Post by trandy on Mar 9, 2015 19:15:18 GMT -8
I think the Apple Watch is going to be a huge success.
Remember, Apple has sold about 700 million iPhones....I'm sure the market research they could afford to do told them all they needed to know.
I think the watch is cool...and cool sells....it's not about"need'...it's about "want"...and I think people will want it.
Here in the USA you can buy one for as little as $349.00...and I'll be all over one as soon as they're available.
I predict that, eventually, you will see all of the majors watch makers develop their own versions of a smart watch....and I mean Rolex, Omega, etc...and yes, even Seiko.
|
|
|
Post by orgigeorgie on Mar 9, 2015 20:49:52 GMT -8
Man, my life is already complicated enough without needing any more things to tell me how many emails I need to reply, or what app recommends what I need to download to improve my life.
Thats the beauty of the automatic, it isn't perfect and it isn't distracting.
No doubt they'll be a success, but I don't see myself wearing one. Something awesome about just wearing a watch - nothing more.
|
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Mar 9, 2015 21:01:27 GMT -8
Anything that gets people looking at their wrists again is good.
|
|
tritto
WS Benefactor
Posts: 5,874
|
Post by tritto on Mar 9, 2015 21:16:20 GMT -8
Can't see it having much impact on vintage watches. Vintage buyers and wearers are hardly going to chuck it in for a smart watch. Maybe more impact on the mid-range quartz market though. People who may spend a couple of hundred on a quartz watch - or those who don't currently wear a watch - may go down the smart watch route. The Apple Watch is pretty expensive by comparison with your average quartz and 3/4 of the worlds population won't be able to afford them for the next few years anyway.
|
|
|
Post by estrickland on Mar 9, 2015 23:48:06 GMT -8
Agree with Trandy that these are going to sell, including the $10k versions.
The iPhone is the iPhone because of the app platform, and the Apple watch opens new fertile ground for the next app gold rush.
With that much creative energy some amazing things will happen. It will take a few generations, but you don't get there without starting somewhere.
Other makers can't compete because they don't have the critical mass of customers it takes to motivate these developers by the thousand.
Apple was pretty smart to include high-pricepoint SKUs - it positions the watch as a luxury good, and that positioning adds perceived value throughout the lineup.
As for the affect on mechanical watch market - over the long term I believe that mechanical watches will become increasingly idiosyncratic and require increasing amounts of money and energy to maintain - like gasoline cars. Over the near term, more people will be talking about watches, and some of them will find their way to Seiko and vintage watches, so it will probably bump prices a little / be a good thing (depending on how you like prices/availability).
|
|
|
Post by thianwong on Mar 10, 2015 0:53:47 GMT -8
I guess the younger generation will gobble up the watch, since most of them use the iphone, which the watch is intended to complement. Of course one needs the iphone to download apps. The battery is good for only max 18 hours. But one could argue tis like having an auto watch or handwinder- the watch needs charging everyday. Our kids(ages 25 and 26 have iphones) might buy into the watch. The wife and I are Luddites and have the old phone styles (clamshell or flip up). After observing our kids utilizing their iphones for many things (internet connection needed!), I admit the iphone is really a great gadget. The watch was touted as a source of medical apps but these are nowhere to be seen yet. I just downloaded the new ios 8.2 to my ipad mini2, and 8.2 is needed to download apps to the coming iwatch.
|
|
|
Post by cannop on Mar 10, 2015 3:36:27 GMT -8
It'll make not one iota of difference to the world of vintage Seiko.
|
|
|
Post by saul on Mar 10, 2015 4:20:26 GMT -8
This is not a watch anymore than the Samsung gizmo was a watch. It is one more piece of annoying wearable tech. Just because you can strap something to your wrist and it can provide a time source does not actually make it a watch. It will not promote any awareness or appreciation for horology. The non-watch wearer who adopts this type of gizmo will not be inclined to get into watches, they will look at a watch (at least a traditional analog watch) and proclaim "Wadda ya mean all it does is tell time?"
|
|
|
Post by madeofducktape on Mar 10, 2015 4:51:55 GMT -8
Agreed- the apple watch would be "wearable tech" its no more a watch than a fitbit .
As for "smartwatches" the model that withings and Frederique constant (mmt) have out are closer to what I would consider. To me they look like a regular watch with a power reserve complication (only one that can track whatever you want).
The biggest detractor I see in them is that there isn't a full line of watches. If they started with diver, chrono, and dress watch offerings "watch people" might be more interested.
The way I see it- its cool that they have an activity tracker but they're trying to cram one watch into every situation.
|
|
|
Post by earthphase on Mar 10, 2015 6:16:42 GMT -8
I disagree with you guys that think it has staying power. There is something fundamentally wrong with a watch that needs to be plugged in every "12" (probably more like 6) hours. It will sell like hot cakes at first until people realize, like with every other smart watch, that it is just not there yet.
We'll see. I'm getting one right away.
|
|
|
Post by estrickland on Mar 10, 2015 6:25:37 GMT -8
Given the universe of shapes and constructions, and the subset of those which can be sat upon, what makes some of those chairs is a matter of intent. Similarly, if it keeps time and Apple calls it a watch, it's a watch. Once called a watch, it has to compete in the design space with other watches - claiming wrist space at the exclusion of other watches. Apple didn't need to do this: there are Fitbits which have a little clock, but they compete as Activity Trackers not watches. Apple could have made a piece of wearable tech which wasn't so obviously a watch (crown on the side) which could be worn along with a traditional watch - a second-wrist gadget. But they didn't, they chose to make a watch. Because it's a watch, it will drive interest in watches - I'm guessing there will be a Watchuseek smartwatch forum within a couple years. Edit: There already is.
|
|
|
Post by nom nom on Mar 10, 2015 7:49:26 GMT -8
It will be interesting to see where the Apple Watch takes us. I believe Apple's intent is to create an entirely new market and isn't looking to compete with traditional watches. I doubt it will be a flop. It just won't be for everyone.
|
|
trandy
Needs a Life!
Posts: 3,274
|
Post by trandy on Mar 10, 2015 8:02:36 GMT -8
Given the universe of shapes and constructions, and the subset of those which can be sat upon, what makes some of those chairs is a matter of intent. Similarly, if it keeps time and Apple calls it a watch, it's a watch. Once called a watch, it has to compete in the design space with other watches - claiming wrist space at the exclusion of other watches. Apple didn't need to do this: there are Fitbits which have a little clock, but they compete as Activity Trackers not watches. Apple could have made a piece of wearable tech which wasn't so obviously a watch (crown on the side) which could be worn along with a traditional watch - a second-wrist gadget. But they didn't, they chose to make a watch. Because it's a watch, it will drive interest in watches - I'm guessing there will be a Watchuseek smartwatch forum within a couple years. Edit: There already is. Exactly...it definitely is a watch....just not the kind most people are used to....and it does a few more tricks too.
|
|
|
Post by 3Pedals6Speeds on Mar 10, 2015 15:07:25 GMT -8
I read something today that suggested that merely conditioning a generation that presently doesn't wear anything on their wrist to have something there might actually help the overall watch market.
If that happens, as those folks age (5-10 years), I'd actually expect some percentage of them to get introduced to vintage mechanical watches (different path to the same destination we all have arrived at) and that we might actually see an increase (a few years from now) in vintage watch collectors in the form of people tired of a gadget on their wrist, but familiar with the idea of *something* being there.
That said, I could be totally wrong and it could do just the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by Benchdweller on Mar 10, 2015 18:08:44 GMT -8
I'm completely underwhelmed by the smartwatch movement in all its current forms. It just seems like the digital watches crammed with pointless features that flourished in the 80's but for the new generation who are hip and trendy and very susceptible to marketing. Sure, it has a few apps or features that may be useful to those who are exercising or whatever but Garmin and Suunto have been doing that for years with zero effect on the regular watch market.
I suspect the majority of the Apple watch demographic are people who have no interest in watches*, vintage or modern, and currently use their phone to tell the time. If anything, some of these people will be introduced the the concept of actually wearing a watch and when they find out that you can buy a watch that charges by itself or keeps a charge for 3-5 years as opposed to hours** then the traditional market will reap some rewards.
*No offence to the people here who are buying one as I doubt it will make you sell up your vintage Seikos because the Apple does everything. In the same way that there are Rolex collectors who own G-Shocks but still collect Rolex.
**I've heard reports from the launch that some watches were dead after 3 hours of constant playing with by the journo's. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by Benchdweller on Mar 10, 2015 18:14:03 GMT -8
|
|