Slashdot Mirror


Swatch Co-Inventor Predicts Apple Will Bring an 'Ice Age' To Swiss Watch Market

MojoKid writes It seems that these days everything Apple touches turns to gold, hence why the company was able to post an $18 billion profit for its fiscal first quarter of 2015. Be that as it may, can Apple popularize the smartwatch market as others have been unable to do so far? Not only is that the expectation, but according to Swatch watch co-inventor Elmar Mock, Apple is going to bring about an "Ice Age" to the Swiss watch market. Elmar noted that he expects the Apple Watch to quickly reach sales of 20 million to 30 million units per year. For the sake of comparison, Switzerland exported 28.6 million watches in 2014, none of them with smart capabilities. "Apple will succeed quickly. It will put a lot of pressure on the traditional watch industry and jobs in Switzerland...I do expect an Ice Age coming toward us," Elmar said. Analysts for Barclays noted to investors that the Apple Watch launch could result in a 6 percent annual decline in Swatch Group AG's revenue. To keep up with the times and fend off Apple, there are at least three Swiss watch companies planning to make smartwatches, including Swatch Group, which will unveil a smart model sometime this year.

23 of 389 comments (clear)

  1. Steampunked by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's okay, traditional watch makers can just switch to making mechanical smart-phones, a wide open niche.

  2. This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Watches such as the Swiss make are luxury items and are the one item of "jewelry"
    a man can wear without controversy in any social circles. Also, a high-end Swiss
    watch is a means of identifying yourself in a particular group, for example a Breitling
    Navitimer probably means you are a professional pilot or at least you want people
    to think you are. An Apple watch will never ever replace a Breitling in this market.

    The Apple watch presents no threat to such Swiss watches, any more than a Tesla
    car presents a threat to Porsche.

    Me, I think the Apple watch is interesting but it is ten times more expensive than it should be
    and is not waterproof, and these two facts mean I will never ever own one.

    1. Re:This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Apple watch presents no threat to such Swiss watches, any more than a Tesla car presents a threat to Porsche.

      And back in 2007 you'd be telling us the iPhone would present no threat to BlackBerry. And before that you'd have told us that the iPod would pose no threat to other mp3 players. The sheer amount of fault predictions that Slashdot nerds have made about Apple are hilarious.

    2. Re:This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Apple watch presents no threat to such Swiss watches, any more than a Tesla car presents a threat to Porsche.

      And back in 2007 you'd be telling us the iPhone would present no threat to BlackBerry. And before that you'd have told us that the iPod would pose no threat to other mp3 players. The sheer amount of fault predictions that Slashdot nerds have made about Apple are hilarious.

      But different reasons. Those high end watches are jewelry that happens to be a watch. Their expense is their allure, and wearing an expensive watch is astatus symbol.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't understand the fuss, since the iWatch and a Swiss watch are two different markets. It's equivalent to saying the new Nikes will kill Louboutin's couture high heel market because sneakers are lighter and more practical. Or TV dinners will destroy the three hat restaurant scene because food is now easier and more convenient I know a few people with expensive watches ($10k+) These people are not interested in flavour of the day gadgets, they prefer hand made shirts, and shoes, and fine dining, and associate with brands that are conservative, exclusive and stand the test of time. None which Apple qualify for.

    4. Re:This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Additionally, a Breitling Emergency has a longer battery life than an iWatch while transmitting an emergency signal to space

    5. Re:This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except no one will buy that watch. Why would you buy a disposable 18k gold watch?

      If you buy an expensive watch you're buying the skill and craftsmanship of the watchmaker. You're buying something that will stand the test of time and pass down to generations. While i'm not a huge watch guy I have a very nice watch that was my great-grandfather's and has been passed down for several generations and it still works well.

      Who's going to buy a $10,000 18k gold Apple Watch that will be obsolete in 6 months? There are no nice pieces, no craftsmanship; you're paying $10,000 for a disposable gold watch made by Chinese peons instead of a quality timepiece made by a master craftsman. There's a huge difference.

    6. Re:This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue by SpzToid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Excellent point. I had never heard of such a watch or technology before, and searched for it. Here's a link: http://www.breitling.com/en/em...

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    7. Re:This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your fatal assumption is assuming the word "Swiss" or the company name "Swatch" means that it is high-end. I guarantee you that the Swiss do not sell 30million Rolex equivalent watches every year.

      The reality is Swiss watches encompass a wide range of companies with a wide range range of styles and price ranges. My girlfriend has a "Swiss" watch. It cost $130. Made in Switzerland. The Swatch group's own main brand "Swatch" is also a very low-end company making watches that range from kids toys (I had a $60 swatch when I was younger). I mean even the company name "Swatch" came from the idea of owning a "second-watch" that was cheap and fun and you could bash it around and wear it while doing the gardening etc, and they are not the only cheap watch manufacturer in Switzerland.

      Swatch nowadays is a group that owns about 15 brands which sell watches for well under $1000. They do also own really high-end brands like Omega.

    8. Re:This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue by Powercntrl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And back in 2007 you'd be telling us the iPhone would present no threat to BlackBerry. And before that you'd have told us that the iPod would pose no threat to other mp3 players. The sheer amount of fault predictions that Slashdot nerds have made about Apple are hilarious.

      You're revising history as much as Apple revises their products. A $599 phone (with no subsidy discount), locked to one carrier, that can't run 3rd party applications, doesn't support MMS, has poor call quality and no 3G support was no threat to Blackberry. A $399, Mac-only, MP3 player that lacks USB was no threat to other MP3 players.

      The iPod didn't become a genuine threat to competitors (and a runaway success) until hell froze over and Windows support was added. The iPhone didn't become a threat to competitors until Apple allowed AT&T to subsidize it. By the time the products had overcome their respective major roadblocks to widespread adoption, the current versions resembled their initial predecessors in name and physical appearance, but most of the missing capabilities the nerd peanut gallery derided them for, had been addressed.

      If anything, this is a cautionary tale that while the Apple Watch may eventually be yet another blazing success story for Apple, the model that goes on sale on April 24th will be nothing like the updated version that catapults it to mainstream popularity. Of course, it could also flop. As they said on Mythbusters, "failure is always an option." Either way, it will be an amusing show, and I'm sure plenty of people will have their own revisionist history to write when it succeeds or fails.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    9. Re:This ex-Swatch guy doesn't have a clue by unimacs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In 2007 there was a 4Gig iPhone that was $499. The $599 model was 8 Gig.

      6.1 million original iPhones were sold in spite of the shortcomings you mentioned.

      iPhone sales surpassed blackberry sales for the first time in the 4th quarter of 2008, - less than a year and 1/2 after it had been introduced. Overtaking a market leader within 18 months is pretty remarkable, especially considering Apple had never sold a phone before.

      Bill Gates recognized the threat right away. RIM didn't and has never recovered.

      I'm not sure the Apple Watch is going to have the same level of success. The smart phone solved a real problem by combining a cellphone with a PDA, and an MP3 player, - two or three devices that many people were carrying. The iPhone was a better implementation of the smart phone than what had existed at the time.

      The Smart Watch doesn't solve those kinds of problems except for perhaps people who carry fitness gadgets with them.

  3. Re:$30 Timex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    because I rarely leave the house

    Yea I don't think you're the norm, or even remotely relevant. Most people aren't shut-ins.

  4. Everyone is thinking Apple can't miss by sasparillascott · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This guy is thinking Apple can't miss - but they often have in their history. My guess is that this will be an AppleTV moment, somewhat successful, but nothing like their other products.

    These poor guys in Switzerland all worried their industry is going to go under need to take a deep breath - these are smartwatches that will become obsolete in a few years...Apple will sell some of these, but until they can replace the phone itself (that time will come) the compelling justification for them (expensive short lifed smartwatches) just isn't there., IMHO...saying that as someone who likes Apples products.

  5. Not sure I agree by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If that were true, Timex would have destroyed the Swiss watch industry. Yet Patek, AP et al are doing fine. That market isn't about telling time but making a statement. A Patek says I appreciate a finely crafted timeless design and don't need to blast "look at me" by wearing a Rolex. It's not copied by every mass market brand yet those who appreciate a fine watch knows what it is; and is a watch that you will pass down from generation to generation. In addition, people who buy numerous watches will continue to do so because they like the design and want to have a choice of waht they want in their wrist. Formal dinner? Time for the gold Cellini. Day a the beach? Seamaster. Building a fence or stone wall? The Timex that will survive the scrapes and doesn't cost $500 to replace a crystal. Apple will do fine but so will the Swiss. An Apple watch will simply be one more to add to the collection Now, if I was Motorola or Samsung? Yea, I'd be worried.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  6. Swiss vs Apple marketing by Camembert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For info I am interested i watches, with a little collection including several vintages. Nothing truly expensive, most even cheap, I do simply like the mechanical engineering.

    This being said, the Swiss watch industry has been carefully marketing its expensive mechanical watches, creating that impression of refined heirloom engineering and jewelry, while by and large you pay simply for marketing and big profits. Very little real innovation happens in the world of mechanical watches. There is the coaxial escapement from Daniels, but what else was recently introduced? The price of luxury watches goes mainly to profit, marketing (posters with Daniel Craig everywhere), boutique costs. In a way you don't get more real engineering quality in many swiss watches than in a gold apple watch.

    Then comes Apple. As a watch enthusiast, while I am not yet conviced about the current utility of a smartwatch, I was immediately impressed by the attention to materials and the straps & bracelets. Barely any innovation happened in that respect in the traditional watches. Look how the lugs are easily exchanged and are ideally adapted to each strap. There is the refined bracelet that you can resize without tools. The magnetically closing milano mesh (admittedly this would not work with a mechanical watch), the way the sports band folds under (this was first done by designer Newsom in his rare Ikepod watches, no coincidence that he is on the Apple design team now). I like how Apple did not simply add a strap to a watch but truly thought it over from scratch.
    Then there is the marketing, where health will become even more a cornerstone in future iterations, since they have hired people specialised in medial sensors. Everyone wants to be healthy, I think this will be the "killer app" going forward. And even in v1, there are several millions of happy iphone users who will be curious to try it, I think that it is indeed not a stretch to imagine it selling a few million pieces by EOY, with real ramp up coming from v2 onwards.

    I think that the apple watch and the more refined android smartwaches will start to bring havoc to the sub $1000 segment of traditional watches from this year onwards. Luxury mechanicals will still sell, but the perception of the public about their worth may well change, I am not sure that the traditional Swiss marketing "you're looking after it until you pass it on" will have staying power.

  7. Re:$30 Timex by aralin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is your comment relevant to any discussion about Apple Watch? Let me paraphrase what you've said: "I'm unique in this very special way and in my particular case, the product would not make sense. So why would anyone buy it?"

    This seems to be a meme on Slashdot. Markets are not about the exception cases, the long tail is what handles exceptions. Market is often about the most common case. If you were a target audience for the watch and it would not work for you for some legitimate reason, that would be newsworthy to hear about. But what you said is irrelevant to most of us who are not exceptional in your own special way.

    I have not worn watch in 30 years and I will buy this one. Not because I need to know time, I don't. Not even because I need a status symbol. I don't. Simply because there are so few fun toys to play with lately. You know, gadgets... for geeks. And like most geeks, I've got more money than I could spend with nothing worthwhile to spend it on. So why not? Plus maybe it will be cool, maybe it will improve my life in some way, it is worth the money to try. But yeah, the last thing I need it is to tell time. Seriously, I am well aware of the time without a watch and at times I forget and need to be made aware of the time, my phone reminds me.

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  8. Re:$30 Timex by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm actually something of a watch nut; but collecting expensive watches is ... expensive. I collect *cheap* watches, which is in its way just as interesting. There's still that interplay between expense, features and design, but the constraining factor is low cost.

    I actually think that in terms of pragmatic qualities, watches become worse as the price climbs from $30 to $100. Why? Because watches accrete features that undermine their ergonomics or have little practical value. Take water resistance. What you want in a cheap watch is 50m or 100m, which are adequate for any practical purpose. Above that you're paying for fantasy value. Watches rated at 200m and above might as well claim a gazillion meters; you'll never be the wiser.

    Also as price rises, dials become more cluttered with features and design elements that actually make them harder to read. Nobody needs a second redundant hour subdial, it's only there to look expensive. And then you go from cheap and every accurate to expensive and quite a bit less accurate mechanical movements. It's a bit like paying to watch a circus act where dogs walk on their hind legs; the whole point of the act is that it's ridiculously hard.

    My favorite watch is a $16 quartz analog day/date Casio "dive" style watch with a rotating bezel and day date at 3:00. The watch face is based on Rolex's classic submariner watch, which costs $10,000 and keeps worse time. Of course the submariner is a much more elegant watch, but it is in no sense any more practical. My next favorite watch is another Casio, the digital F-91W ($9), which happens to be Al Qaeda's standard issue training camp watch. They also use it for bomb detonators. It's cheap, accurate and simple and has a elegantly straightforward design -- something you get only on very cheap or very expensive watches.

    I also own a Pebble, which is in my view ugly as sin and quickly developed a screen tearing problem. But in terms of combining timekeeping and notifications it'd be hard to improve upon functionally. As for the phone in my pocket I'd be less worried about it than my leg in a mishap that might break it.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  9. Re:$30 Timex by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    or maybe the dude just realizes that the signal to noise ratio in your 'always connected 24/7' world leans heavily in the direction of pointless trivia.. and has more interesting things to be concerned with?

  10. Re:Well, I wouldn't buy one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How can you tell someone owns a Mac?

    Oh, don't worry. They'll tell *you*.

  11. Re:$30 Timex by aralin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would want to fly, but I will settle for a fast car, especially if all I got right now is an old beat up car. So if I do have to carry a phone anyway right now, not having to take it out of the bag every time, seems quite preferable. If most of the interfacing with my phone can be done through smaller display conveniently located on my wrist, it would seem like an improvement over my current situation. My phone can then stay in my laptop bag, working as a modem and occasionally come out for some of the richer apps.

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  12. Re:$30 Timex by msobkow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh, like "wow, man."

    He dug up my public Facebook pic.

    Scary shit, eh? Next thing you know he'll look up my Linked In profile and tell you where I worked... :P :P :P

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  13. Re:$30 Timex by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or maybe Mr. CowHARD will actually read my Crackbook profile and let the cat out of the bag that I'm a medical cannabis user, as if that's supposed to embarass me any more than a photo I made public does.

    LOL. Kids these days.

    They have no idea what freedom there comes from "getting old." 99.99% of people my age and older look like they've been run over by a truck. It's called "age".

    Not to worry, though. Mr. CowHARD will learn what it is to be "old" soon enough. :D

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  14. Re:Well, I wouldn't buy one by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a Mac.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.