Should Rolex hire Jonathan Ives?

[psv]

I guess the topic about Rolex's design direction has been up before but I'm concerned enough to keep discussing it. I do understand that a brand and design needs to evolve but I am increasingly alarmed by the new models and make-overs that Rolex offers to the market.

It started with the maxi-cases on the GMTs which then continued on the Submariners, which makes the visual appearance boxy, dare I say a bit crude. The proportions went out the window on the Explorer redesign, both on the Explorer I and the latest Explorer II. The Deepsea Sea-Dweller is a monster achievement and a technical engineering masterpiece but perhaps a bit too much focus on monster with the steroid-injected case, ringlock system and NASCAR style text. Don't get me started on the new Sky-Dweller...

I wonder what would happened if the design genius Jony Ives (from Apple) would get the opportunity to redesign a Rolex? A less is more approach while focusing on the essentials in the design language and history, keeping functionality as a center piece. I dream about a Rolex Submariner no-date with a matte dial (from the DSSD), maxi dial and hands, Rolex crown and brand name at the top of the dial; only "Submariner" on the bottom part - no unnecessary text. I can live with ceramic bezel but I envisioned it a bit less glossy and tighter turning mechanism so it doesn't move all the time. Naturally it would have the older style case but with the updated bracelet with glide-lock clasp. Lug holes! :-)

How hard can that be to create? How much more bling, oversized and overdesign Rolex watches can the brand take?

Rolex, please bring in Jony Ives!

[Tuesday rant off]

[Megalobyte]

I suppose they'd be made out of glass, and you'd need a protective case for your watch. :)

And I can picture Scott Forstall saying: "When I was a kid, I used to dream of a device that you could just look at, and you'd know what time it was... We call it, Time-time, brought to you by Rolex..." :)

[dysondiver]

i like your thinking ,,, that way we would at least get a white faced sub again.

[FremStar]

Hmmm... I take it that you are not a fan of any of the modern iterations and that is fine, as you are aware the world of vintage is alive and well and is ripe for the picking. I am sure that there are many vintage Rolex references that initially piqued your interest in the brand so I say dive in and pick up the ones you missed out on, now to bring in J. Ives would be a no for you since you don't like the bling, all current Apple products/designs are blinged out! I am certain you remember the Macintosh, look at where we are today ;-) Hey in my business we love J. Ives for all he has done... Look at the current stock price! ;-)

[Zed Homme]

I think that if you wanted a watch that followed Apple's design philosophy, you would be happy with the design of a Skagen.

I for one like Rolex's new designs (maybe not all of them) and think the brand is evolving at the right pace in the right direction. While I love the classics, the brand does need to evolve.

[dddrees]

Sale's or actually lack of sales would be the only thing I could see that would drive this kind of decision. Unfortunately Rolex isn't a public company, but has anyone heard that Rolex was doing real bad lately?


Besides I think you would find a lot of people think what they have accomplished over the last couple of years to be pretty extraordinary. They now offer a good mix of larger and original size watches. They've also adressed some of the critics with newer designs in regards to their bracelet clasps,

[floater156]

Modern Rolex appeals to me much more than vintage. Your dream Sub doesn't do anything for me. I'd scoop up the Sky-Dweller in a heart beat. I love the direction Rolex is going with design. Keep up the good work!

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by psv

The proportions went out the window on the Explorer redesign, both on the Explorer I and the latest Explorer II.

Yes, the fat lugs are polarizing, but, this? What went "out the window"? At least with respect to the lugs & bracelet, Rolex nailed it with the 216570. Maybe the hands are a bit HUGE, but, it's a sports model, so, I give that a pass.

Anyway, your other design ideas, like reducing the amount of text on the dial, is something that is not a recent phenomenon, no?

[pwnageinc]

No, designing computers and gadgets is nothing like watches. I am sure everyone has great design ideas for watches but just because someone is a legend for product design doesn't mean they would design a great watch

[Le Chef]

For both the brand and Jonathan Ives it would be an expensive and time consuming disaster. You need to understand what needs to be done to know how to modernize a brand without damaging its heritage. I would pick three car designers before Jonathan Ives.

Ian Callum who has successfully transformed Jaguar.

Gerry McGovern who is doing the same for Land Rover/Range Rover.

Michael Mauer who is doing the same at Porsche.

All have a great grasp of the design language and heritage of their brands but have sensitively moved them forward so they feel more contemporary.

[witch watch]

Originally Posted by Zed Homme

I think that if you wanted a watch that followed Apple's design philosophy, you would be happy with the design of a Skagen.

That's a very,very good shout

[witch watch]

Originally Posted by Le Chef

For both the brand and Jonathan Ives it would be an expensive and time consuming disaster. You need to understand what needs to be done to know how to modernize a brand without damaging its heritage. I would pick three car designers before Jonathan Ives.

Ian Callum who has successfully transformed Jaguar.

Gerry McGovern who is doing the same for Land Rover/Range Rover.

Michael Mauer who is doing the same at Porsche.

1: IM HAS changed Jaguar in a very big way but i struggle to see how he has kept the heritage alive in his designs. Cat badge on the grill? No thanks

2: The Defender Concept is very much a 'New Explorer II' so GM is someone who could fit right in at Rolex right now but would polarise opinions for sure.

3: Mauer is the man i think would satisfy most of the people most of the time, you'd just have to live with the new typeface though

[SPARTAN2161]

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

I suppose they'd be made out of glass, and you'd need a protective case for your watch. :)

And I can picture Scott Forstall saying: "When I was a kid, I used to dream of a device that you could just look at, and you'd know what time it was... We call it, Time-time, brought to you by Rolex..." :)

"time-time" LMFAO

[capote]

Originally Posted by psv

It started with the maxi-cases on the GMTs which then continued on the Submariners, which makes the visual appearance boxy, dare I say a bit crude. The proportions went out the window on the Explorer redesign, both on the Explorer I and the latest Explorer II. The Deepsea Sea-Dweller is a monster achievement and a technical engineering masterpiece but perhaps a bit too much focus on monster with the steroid-injected case, ringlock system and NASCAR style text. Don't get me started on the new Sky-Dweller...

I agree 100%. In many cases the new models looks like parodies, or homages at best, to classic Rolex watches. Subtilty is no longer in demand it seems.

[Megalobyte]

The only one that would really be argued to be a parody, and of course that's debatable, is the new Exp. It makes sense though, Exp sales were always sluggish compared to Subs and GMT's, so why not try to do something with it?

The changes to the Sub, are certainly not revolutionary. 99.9% of people would never notice the difference between a 16610 and a 116610. Only watch nuts notice subtle differences like thicker lugs, maxi dial, super case, squared crown protectors etc. These are pretty subtle changes and nobody looking at a 116610 who knows what a Sub looks like would be like: "Hey, what's that? It's not a Submariner, that's for sure!" :)

[capote]

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

99.9% of people would never notice the difference between a 16610 and a 116610. Only watch nuts notice subtle differences like thicker lugs, maxi dial, super case, squared crown protectors etc.

That maybe true, but since when did we start caring about Joe Sixpack
Personally I think its a huge change in design with the shiny ceramic and maxi lugs. But thats just me

[psv]

OK, maybe Jony Ives is not the best example to personify a new direction, but it was rather to make a point.

Rolex sport watches were always professional tool watches, but still with a level of elegance and sophistication. I think the new cases takes away that je-ne-sais-quoi elegance.

I do agree that the new bracelets and clasp are major improvements, but couldn't they simply put maxi hands/hour plots on a Sub 16610, black insert and the new bracelet? Did the new Explorer II really need super-maxi-hands? They should rename that one Fat Boy! ;-) (if Harley can get away with it so can Rolex...)

Vintage Rolex is fun and all, but I keep scratching up the plastic crystals, and the older bracelets are often too worn out, feel flimsy and/or make too much noise.

Is it too much to ask to have a simple and attractive modern sport watch?

[psv]

And yes Sam, I would make an exception for the 166718 18K GMTIIC - one of my favorite Rolex ever! :-)

[FremStar]

Originally Posted by psv

OK, maybe Jony Ives is not the best example to personify a new direction, but it was rather to make a point.

Rolex sport watches were always professional tool watches, but still with a level of elegance and sophistication. I think the new cases takes away that je-ne-sais-quoi elegance.

I do agree that the new bracelets and clasp are major improvements, but couldn't they simply put maxi hands/hour plots on a Sub 16610, black insert and the new bracelet? Did the new Explorer II really need super-maxi-hands? They should rename that one Fat Boy! ;-) (if Harley can get away with it so can Rolex...)

Vintage Rolex is fun and all, but I keep scratching up the plastic crystals, and the older bracelets are often too worn out, feel flimsy and/or make too much noise.

Is it too much to ask to have a simple and attractive modern sport watch?

Hey Patrick to be honest reading your current wants above I believe it time you start to look at the other horological houses as you already have . Audemars has that rugged yet elegant look that you are currently seeking which it appears is more to your liking Funny on the "Fat boy" to 216570 reference that's why I named mine Oprah (straight from TWC in Chicago to my wrist) ;-)

[FremStar]

Originally Posted by psv

And yes Sam, I would make an exception for the 166718 18K GMTIIC - one of my favorite Rolex ever! :-)

Mine too! Rolex definitely hit a Babe Ruth Homer with the entire 1167XX line!!!

[Megalobyte]

Originally Posted by capote

That maybe true, but since when did we start caring about Joe Sixpack
Personally I think its a huge change in design with the shiny ceramic and maxi lugs. But thats just me

My point was just that if only watch nuts could ever notice the difference between a 16610 and a 116610, the changes must be pretty subtle.

I'm a certified watch nut, but even I can't easily tell a ceramic from a pre ceramic Sub on someone's wrist without making it awkward and obvious. :)

The Sub still looks just like a Sub, albeit with some subtle changes, many of which I feel are significant and good, like the Glidelock, maxi dial (superior low light legibility), a bezel that still looks brand spanking new after wearing the watch for years, the ONLY things I agree might have been better, would be a more tapered lug, and I guess I do prefer the more pointed crown guards.

But again, the changes are subtle, so subtle that only a serious watch nut could even notice, upon close inspection.

[Fiery]

IMHO Rolex is right on track with their latest releases, both construction-wise and design-wise. The supercase + maxi-dial treatment made the Sub and GMT a bolder, sportier watch. Exactly what they should be. The DSSD was a logical step forward, since it combined a large case size with a technical achievement (3900m WR). The old SD could be considered redundant with the same diameter as the Sub, but with the DSSD Rolex offers a big diver's watch as well as a moderate sized diver's watch -- there's one for everyone now.

As for the Exp II, well, it was once again a bit redundant with the same case as the Sub and GMT, so IMHO it was the perfect move to design a slightly different case shape and a bigger case size, to make it more special and stand out from the "crowd" of Rolex sports waches. Bigger size (42mm) combined with bold dial design = the perfect sports watch for those who doesn't need (or want) a diver's watch, or those who find the Sub too small and the DSSD too big.

As for the Sky-Dweller, IMHO it is a genius step from Rolex. It combines a truly groundbreaking movement, a unique design for month representation and classic Rolex design cues for elegant sports watches (fluted bezel, cyclops), and adds a bit of spice with the 24-hour subdial. Plus, it introduces a slightly increased case size to appeal to those people who found even the DDII a bit small to their liking. It's a bold watch that makes a statement, it is unique, it is special, and if Rolex doesn't sc*** it up by introducing a TT or SS model, it may well become their new flagship model. We on this great forum may say bad things about this new model, we may state that we'd never buy this thing, but IMHO it is partly (or mostly?) because deep inside we know that we will never be able to afford it. Which is a shame, but then again, there's the Pt DDII which is even less affordable and unattainable for 99% (or 99.9%?) of the world's population.

[T.S.Eliot]

I agree that the super case is not easy on the eyes, at least my eyes. All other enhancements are right (bracelet - clasp - ceramic) except for the boxy case. It somehow reminds me of the first vintage Sub design. The picture is from another site

[MoBe]

The Rolex marketing dept. is probably telling the design dept. what they want to sell so the designers give them what they want and there`s little if any dicussion on the subject.

There`s no doubt in my mind that the mangement style at Rolex is strictly from the top down and design is probably very far down the order.I don`t think we`ll be seeing any innovative designs from Rolex for the forseeable future.

[ecsub44]

Originally Posted by FremStar

Hmmm... I take it that you are not a fan of any of the modern iterations and that is fine, as you are aware the world of vintage is alive and well and is ripe for the picking. I am sure that there are many vintage Rolex references that initially piqued your interest in the brand so I say dive in and pick up the ones you missed out on, now to bring in J. Ives would be a no for you since you don't like the bling, all current Apple products/designs are blinged out! I am certain you remember the Macintosh, look at where we are today ;-) Hey in my business we love J. Ives for all he has done... Look at the current stock price! ;-)

That watch is enormous!!!