Will smart watches put an end to mechanical watches?

[vman]

Nope. If anything, they will make mechanical watches more appealing. A solid mechanical time piece may last for generations. A piece of tech is out within a year.

[jshepard]

I doubt it. Quartz should've killed it a long time ago. Instead it's now become a symbol of good taste. The smart watch will even more perpetuate the idea of the mechanical watch as a gentleman's tool. It's what separates the men from the boys!

[socalwatchcollector]

If they make it in GOLD! LOL

[robisan]

No... way..

[Massnegro]

When a smart watch has the kudos and timeless elegance of a Heuer 844 or a Rolex 93150 perhaps, but I've a feeling hell will freeze over before that happens.

[locutus49]

When Apple buys out Rolex, they will rename the watches iRolex and call it steampunk to attract younger people.

[Java]

Never. But they might make a dent in the quartz watch market. They will be bought by people who value function. People who by mechanical watches value other things.

[Syed117]

End to mechanical watches? Absolutely not.

However, calling them a fad is extremely short sighted. They've been around for a few years and for the most part they haven't been game changers. New technology rarely is. It takes time and iteration to create something truly special.

Still waiting for the right balance of form and function. Right now, most of the looks like toys and the functionality isn't at a point where people think they have to have it.

I will always love mechanical watches, but if a smartwatch comes along that truly changes the way I interact with technology or benefits my life in a meaningful way, I will definitely try it out. Will it give me the same feeling a mechanical watch does? Of course not. That's not the point.

The Moto 360 is coming this summer and it's by far the best looking smartwatch to date. Nice Steel case, Sapphire crystal and hopefully meaningful technology.











http://c2.bgr.com/2014/03/clockw-not...y-ramotion.gif

[vman]

Originally Posted by Syed117

End to mechanical watches? Absolutely not.

However, calling them a fad is extremely short sighted. They've been around for a few years and for the most part they haven't been game changers. New technology rarely is. It takes time and iteration to create something truly special.

Still waiting for the right balance of form and function. Right now, most of the looks like toys and the functionality isn't at a point where people think they have to have it.

I will always love mechanical watches, but if a smartwatch comes along that truly changes the way I interact with technology or benefits my life in a meaningful way, I will definitely try it out. Will it give me the same feeling a mechanical watch does? Of course not. That's not the point.

The Moto 360 is coming this summer and it's by far the best looking smartwatch to date. Nice Steel case, Sapphire crystal and hopefully meaningful technology.











http://c2.bgr.com/2014/03/clockw-not...y-ramotion.gif

Yes, the first picture is really nice and I don't doubt that smart watches will appeal to a certain segment of population. Yet, they will always be in a different market--the one of electronics, not the one of horology. If anything, smart watches should put a lot of focus on traditional horology and the companies that focus on very high end mechanical timepieces will make it out like bandits.

Here is another perspective. I live in Silicon Valley where you'd think smart watches would be everywhere. Nope. Rolex, AP, Panerai, and Omega are in. Once in a while I will see a smart watch in San Francisco, but if you stroll around through the major airports and through the malls, you'll see that techies are still pretty much about gears and balance springs. I know this is not a scientific poll or anything, but it makes me believe that the ones with means will appreciate the classics and leave the smart watches in PowerPoint slides. In fact I would not be surprised if the smart watch trend goes the way of the health monitors that were hot once but are now on a decline.

[T. Ferguson]

No, it will never happen, any more than quartz or digital watches did. The fine timepiece conveys taste, quality, individuality, achievement and yes, even status.

[HL65]

Nope.

[elcompa]

Ahm....no.

[tom2517]

Originally Posted by vman

Yes, the first picture is really nice and I don't doubt that smart watches will appeal to a certain segment of population. Yet, they will always be in a different market--the one of electronics, not the one of horology. If anything, smart watches should put a lot of focus on traditional horology and the companies that focus on very high end mechanical timepieces will make it out like bandits.

Here is another perspective. I live in Silicon Valley where you'd think smart watches would be everywhere. Nope. Rolex, AP, Panerai, and Omega are in. Once in a while I will see a smart watch in San Francisco, but if you stroll around through the major airports and through the malls, you'll see that techies are still pretty much about gears and balance springs. I know this is not a scientific poll or anything, but it makes me believe that the ones with means will appreciate the classics and leave the smart watches in PowerPoint slides. In fact I would not be surprised if the smart watch trend goes the way of the health monitors that were hot once but are now on a decline.

I think it's a bit early to call the verdict on smart watches, when cellphones first came out, it was huge, cumbersome, expensive, and even McKinsey consulting concluded that cellphones will never be mainstream.

Smart watches are not popular yet because they aren't that good, but I think they will be big in the future.

[Joshuamaxkatz]

Could never buy one because it would mean less wrist time for my real watch

[Alanautumn]

I don't think so. Agree with most others here. Also, it would be a pain for me personally to have one more thing to recharge every night.

[GTC]

If you read this thread, some of the naysayers sound a bit like like some of the talk years ago when MicroSoft was working on early tablets, and doing it terrible. They were unwieldy and the user experience was awful. Then, April 3, 2010, along comes Apple and gets it right. All the way right. And they sell 18 million in the remaining of the year. Then at blinding speed, 73 million tablets were sold the following year by all manufacturers. By 2012, there were 116 MILLION tablets sold. Then 2013, 195 million.

I think we have to be honest and say that when the right solution comes along instead of the ridiculous current state of smart watch technology, usability, and design, and that day will come, when classic form matches cutting edge function; then, mechanical watches could, and likely would go the way of other technologies that did only one thing, like typewriters.

And that likely reality is one of the real reasons I ultimately didn't pick up a precious metal Rolex not long ago.

[The_Walrus]

My phone tells me the time which means I should have done away with my watch from your thinking?
Mechanical watches are here to stay.
They are not worn to tell the time alone. Many reasons why we all own multiple brands and numbers of them

[vman]

Originally Posted by GTC

If you read this thread, some of the naysayers sound a bit like like some of the talk years ago when MicroSoft was working on early tablets, and doing it terrible. They were unwieldy and the user experience was awful. Then, April 3, 2010, along comes Apple and gets it right. All the way right. And they sell 18 million in the remaining of the year. Then at blinding speed, 73 million tablets were sold the following year by all manufacturers. By 2012, there were 116 MILLION tablets sold. Then 2013, 195 million.

I think we have to be honest and say that when the right solution comes along instead of the ridiculous current state of smart watch technology, usability, and design, and that day will come, when classic form matches cutting edge function; then, mechanical watches could, and likely would go the way of other technologies that did only one thing, like typewriters.

And that likely reality is one of the real reasons I ultimately didn't pick up a precious metal Rolex not long ago.

Unlike a typewriter, a modern mechanical watch is not a utility--it is a combination of fashion and technology that fused itself into an expensive accessory. Glashutte Original has a category of watches that defines what a modern watch is and what it will be in the future--Art & Technik. Such watches may not appeal to everybody, but people who like bespoke suits, handgrade shoes and other finer things in life will certainly remain satisfied.

[GTC]

I'll give you your watch definition of a combo of fashion and technology; but to say people who like the finer things of life will by definition stay satisfied with the past when the future arrives is ridiculous on it's face because the future is not known. Tablets were a no-go for years until the future showed up with Steve Jobs.

With smart watches too, someone will likely eventually fuse fashion and technology into an expensive accessory driven by micro processors that truly changes the ways you can interact with the world, benefits your life in a meaningful way. The world will move forward by meeting all the desires you mention in new in better ways.

For your archetype for defining a modern watch for the future it is difficult to cite Glashutte Original. Irrespective of quality and exclusivity, they are an isolated company with under 200 employees. With such a lack of scale, it is difficult to see how they can have any defining influence even in the luxury market (even while being owned by the Swatch Group).

[vman]

Originally Posted by GTC

I'll give you your watch definition of a combo of fashion and technology; but to say people who like the finer things of life will by definition stay satisfied with the past when the future arrives is ridiculous on it's face because the future is not known. Tablets were a no-go for years until the future showed up with Steve Jobs.

People like art. High-end mechanical watches are art. That's why they will stay and appeal to the niche market.

By the way, when I dropped the name Glashutte Original, I did not d so because of the brand per se, but due to how the company named a category of their watches.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by GTC

I'll give you your watch definition of a combo of fashion and technology; but to say people who like the finer things of life will by definition stay satisfied with the past when the future arrives is ridiculous on it's face because the future is not known. Tablets were a no-go for years until the future showed up with Steve Jobs.

With smart watches too, someone will likely eventually fuse fashion and technology into an expensive accessory driven by micro processors that truly changes the ways you can interact with the world, benefits your life in a meaningful way. The world will move forward by meeting all the desires you mention in new in better ways.

You've mentioned the tablet twice as evidence of your theory. But what did the tablet replace? Certainly not some old technology that had been around and accepted for 100+ years. To the extent it replaced the laptop, what does that prove in regard to an iwatch replacing a mechanical watch? Nothing, because the mechanical watch will not be competing with the smart watch on a technological basis. A more appropriate comparison would be to say the iwatch will replace the smart phone, and frankly I doubt even that will happen.

And yes, it's true we don't know what the future holds, but I'm pretty sure about one thing - this type of consumer technology is cheap and disposable, meaning the price of new technology always comes down and it has a short life span. Today's technology will be obsolete in the near future. People will not in numbers buy $10K or precious metal smart watches for this reason alone.

So while the iwatch may encroach on the inexpensive quartz watch or plastic banded swatch or fossil timepiece, I see little threat to the higher end luxury mechanical watch. This will always be something people aspire to, that lasts for decades, and is passed down through generations.

Just my 2¢

[GTC]

Here's a historical harbinger: In the Victorian era (1837-1901) pocket watches were nearly ubiquitous. And, up until the start of the 20th century the pocket watch was predominant and the emerging wristwatch was considered feminine and unmanly. Pocket watches began to be superseded by wristwatches around the time of World War I, when officers in the field began to appreciate that a watch worn on the wrist was more easily accessed than one kept in a pocket.

However, pocket watches continued to be widely used in railroading even as their popularity declined virtually everywhere else.

Three things have to happen together for the smart watch to kill the luxury mechanical watch:
1. Smart-watch technology has to arrive in a compelling way at the higher end luxury market.
2. Smart watch technology significantly improves your interaction with the world.
3. Smart-watch technology improves your life in a meaningful and unique way.

That may not be enough for you to make the move over; but it will be more than enough for your children.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by GTC

Three things have to happenether for the smart watch to kill the luxury mechanical watch:
1. Smart-watch technology has to arrive in a compelling way at the higher end luxury market.
2. Smart watch technology significantly improves your interaction with the world.
3. Smart-watch technology improves your life in a meaningful and unique way.

That may not be enough for you to make the move over; but it will be more than enough for your children.

But again, the smart watch will probably first have to replace the cell phone because if it doesn't then all this technology that will be available in the watch would also be available for your phone. And if you need your phone anyway then the iwatch replacing the high end mechanical timepiece becomes questionable.

And I don't see that happening for at least 3 reasons. Screen size is one. The inability to A) operate it with two hands (or two thumbs) without taking it off your wrist and B) talk and listen at the same time without additional gear (i.e. earpiece) are reasons 2 & 3.

Even those that talk about the future don't seem to say that for some reason the watch will be able to do things you can't do with the phone. It seems not much more than a convenience device that saves you the "trouble" of pulling your cell phone out of your pocket for certain (not all) things. I just don't think that's enough of a reason to overcome all the reasons people aspire to own and wear a fine mechanical watch.

[scotiatime]

not unless rolex, patek switch to them.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by grmike

not unless rolex, patek switch to them.

But who's going to pay Rolex or Patek money for a watch with the lifespan of most any consumer electronic good? How often do you replace your phone or your laptop, for example?

[astro98]

No way

[Syed117]

The moto 360 should be out soon. Looking forward to seeing how it reviews. If it does well, I'll definitely pick one up as a toy to fool around with.

Smart watches are not competing with high end mechanical watches. Completely different markets.

When apple releases theirs, it will sell more in a quarter than Rolex does in a year. You can't really compare something that costs a few hundred dollars to something that costs thousands.

The point about replacing electronics is spot on. These things aren't meant to last. There will be newer and better versions every year.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[DreambreaX]

design very ugly. First they should improve the design and materials first.

Imagine the smart watches are using forge carbon case, ceramic bezel, it would be better.

But people wont spend expensive smart watches, soon they will upgrade, technology is fast.

[tudorwatches]

No

[landroverking]

Yeah just like quartz did.