Tag Heuer Partners With Google and Intel To Create Luxury Apple Watch Rival

An anonymous reader writes Luxury Swiss watchmaker Tag Heuer has announced it will be designing a smartwatch in partnership with U.S. tech giants Google and Intel. The watch is to rival similar devices in the consumer wearables market, specifically the much-anticipated Apple Watch. Tag is the first watchmaker to join with Google, however it is thought the deal will also welcome collaborations with other high-quality LVMH brands, such as Hublot and Zenith. The watch will be available toward the end of the year, with price structures and functionality details announced shortly before its release.

Comments

It's win-win.

[dohzer]

Google and Intel bring the tech know-how, and Tag Heuer brings the idiots willing to pay ridiculous money for a watch.

Re:It's win-win.

[ZipK]

Tag Heuer brings the idiots willing to pay ridiculous money for a watch.

Tag Heuer customers don't pay truly ridiculous money for watches, because Tag Heuer is a piker in the luxury watch market. Google and Intel need to partner with Hublot, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Bulgari, Chopard, Franck Muller, Patek Philippe and others if they want to get into serious levels of ridiculous.

Re:It's win-win.

[bloodhawk]

Tag prices actually are one of the more reasonable in the quality brands. having said that I still can't understand why the fuck people are racing to create smart watches. how many times does this segment have to fail before they realize this is a case of them searching for a problem that doesn't exist.

Re:It's win-win.

[Anonymous Coward]

how many times does this segment have to fail before they realize this is a case of them searching for a problem that doesn't exist.

Apple could put their logo on a turd, an actual turd, and sell tens of millions. The only problem would be coming up with ten million turds.

Re: It's win-win.

[l0ungeb0y]

Except Intel is lacking heavily in good embedded processors for now

FTFY

You do know what Intel makes right? And even if they don't know how to make something as good as the competition in-house, they have the pockets to buy someone that can. It just takes the motivation.

Re:It's win-win.

[Captain Splendid]

Tag Heuer are the Bose of the watch world

Re: It's win-win.

[ChunderDownunder]

Isn't that the point of Quark, their 'wearable' SoC?

Re:It's win-win.

[hcs_$reboot]

Tag Heuer brings the idiots willing to pay ridiculous money for a watch.

For some people "ridiculous money" is just pocket money. Those are the Tag Heuer clients. Why pay for cheaper while that "ridiculous money" for a TH doesn't make any difference in a daily budget.

Re:It's win-win.

[aaaaaaargh!]

There is nothing ridiculous about paying lots of money for a watch if you have enough of it.

However, I was under the impression that most luxury watches are mechanical (as opposed to quartz) and not watches either, but rather chronometers. They are much less precise than any quartz watch and it very hard to make them water proof. People buy them because they are engineering marvels and will last for generations if they are overhauled regularly by a watchmaker certified for the brand. I wonder whether there is any overlap between this group of buyers and potential smartwatch customers at all.

On the other hand, if you look around you'll find that there are collectors for just about everything, so why not luxury smartwatches.

Re:It's win-win.

[Solandri]

I still can't understand why the fuck people are racing to create smart watches. how many times does this segment have to fail before they realize this is a case of them searching for a problem that doesn't exist.

Because history says you're probably wrong. The first mechanical clocks filled up a room. Refinement of the design allowed them to become small enough to sit in the hallway of your house. Replacing the pendulum with a spring allowed them to shrink enough that you could pack in your bag and take it with you while traveling. Miniaturization shrank that until they were small enough to carry in your pocket. Further miniaturization and the introduction of electronics allowed them to became small enough to be strapped to your wrist.

Computers were first large devices that took up most of the room. Then the shrank to something small enough to fit on your desk at home. Then something you could pack in your bag and take with you while traveling. Further advances and reduction in power consumption (reducing battery requirement) allowed them to become small enough to carry in your pocket. The next step down in size is something you can strap to your wrist.

The main impediment to further miniaturization right now is screen size - both for display and data entry purposes. My hunch is that as soon as someone begins mass-producing flexible displays, that barrier is going to vanish. Your computer/phone will be strapped to your wrist with rudimentary interactive functions handled via its small built-in display. If you need a larger display, it'll come in the form of a pen you carry in your pocket or purse which unfurls like a scroll and connects wirelessly to your watch-computer. Unroll it part-way for a display the size of a current smartphone display. Pull it out further for a display the size of a tablet or small laptop. Speaking of which, your "laptop" will simply be a wireless keyboard you can add to your travel bag and use in conjunction with your watch-computer and unrolling display.

Re:It's win-win.

[jandersen]

Google and Intel bring the tech know-how, and Tag Heuer brings the idiots willing to pay ridiculous money for a watch.

Well, to be fair, although I see your point about being an idiot for wanting to pay tens of thousands for a thing that just tells the time, there is at least some justification in a sense, when what you are buying is a mechanical masterpiece made from a few, really rather simple bits, but engineering to a breathtaking standard of accuracy. You can understand why something like that would be expensive, even if you can point out that it is irrelevant for anybody in practical terms.

But a smart watch? It adds no actual value to its user, it is exclusively a way of telling the world that you are stupid and rich enough to not care about how you spend money; a fashion statement. And like all digital technology, it is dated as soon as you have bought it, because even before it goes on sale, the next, better version is already in the pipeline.

Re:It's win-win.

[swb]

"Ridiculous money" is sort of a relative. I'd argue that Tag customers pay ridiculous money relative to their income, since most Tag customers are merely sort of affluent, not "rich".

Re:It's win-win.

[Hognoxious]

The only problem would be coming up with ten million turds.

iPecacuanha?

Re:It's win-win.

[Hognoxious]

Replacing the pendulum with a spring allowed them to shrink enough that you could pack in your bag and take it with you while traveling.

Why would replacing an oscillation regulator with an energy store help?

Re:It's win-win.

[mwvdlee]

They sell you a dial with a single needle and tell you it's just as good as 3 needles due to some stupid algorithm that tries to simulate it?

Re:It's win-win.

[mwvdlee]

There are enough rich people to sustain current high-end priced watches.
A watch (or atleast anything beyond a $10 casio) is a fashion accessory.
Just like all fashion, it pays to have absurd "haute couture" products that nobody really buys, because it makes famous people want to buy the high-end products, which makes ordinary people buy the low-end products where all the profit is made.
Most top fashion brands famed for catwalk suits, dresses and clothing make most of their profit from branded handbags and belts that ordinary folk can afford.
Same deal here; Tag Heuer is perhaps the most popular brand willing to risk their brand name in cooperating with Google.

Re:It's win-win.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

engineering marvels and will last for generations if they are overhauled regularly by a watchmaker certified for the brand

Yes most luxury watches are still all mechanical movements and the mechanical aspect is what makes them neat. There is a lot of engineering that goes into making one and depending on the watch there is the appreciation of the skill of craftsman that made it. That said I don't think a lot of people buying luxury watches are necessarily buying them for that but instead as a means of showing off. Think of it as the way MBAs measure their equivalent of their e-peen.

As far as service goes, just like with vehicles a good watch repair shop will be able to take care of it without any issue and keep them adjusted and clean. The watch repair shop I go to while being a certified repair shop for some high end watches will gladly service any watch and does quality repairs. They guy there even makes replacement parts that can not be sourced by other means which was done for one of my watches to repair a broken internal chain link and replace a missing screw on a watch that is over 160 years old. Add in that the aforementioned repairs, plus full cleaning, oiling, and adjustment came to $120 and the watch works probably as good as it did new. Just getting a full cleaning, oiling, and adjustment only costs about $30 for most watches so it isn't the silly prices charged by jewelers or Luxury Brand X repair shops, much like the price difference for an oil change for a BMW at Valvoline rapid oil change vs. getting it done at the dealer.

Re: It's win-win.

[Hevel-Varik]

Why was this modded troll?

Re: It's win-win.

[hey!]

They've always been about design, as you'd know if you ever cracked open one of their tower computer cases it goes more than skin deep.

Design is about making choices, and one of the most important choices you have to make is which stuff to leave out. Take watches. If you have a watch with no features other than an hour, minute and second hand, that represents the pinnacle of usability for telling time with an analog watch. With every feature you add to an analog watch the task of telling time becomes ever-so-slightly more trouble.

Some analog watches feature a sun/moon complication which tells you whether it is AM or PM. This added feature doesn't remove the time-telling feature, it just adds design constraints: no digits on the dial, some ours don't have luminous markers etc. Consequently I don't care for this feature, but some people like it and possibly a very small number of them find it useful. This is also true of more popular features like day of the week or stopwatch subdials. They are occasionally useful but they add constraints and clutter. That explains why at a certain price point the number of geegaws on a watch starts going down. That's the point at which the manufacturer begins focusing on design. Consequently the most elegant watches are either very cheap or very expensive.

Google "Al Qaeda Watch" and you'll find the Casio F-91W, a black, square of plastic that is to super-cheap watches what the Rolex Submariner is to super-luxury watches: a design classic. But it's missing a feature I use quite a bit, a countdown timer. To get that I have to spend a few more dollars, and I end up with a bunch of *other* features like multiple time zones, multiple alarms, databanks etc. that significantly complicate the operation of the watch. The market simply doesn't offer a watch that has *exactly* what I want in such a perfectly streamlined package. And this shows something important about design, which is that people have different needs and tastes, so there's no such thing as a blend of function and form that's ideal for everyone.

Selling design is smart. It makes a successful product more profitable because it adds no marginal cost to each unit. And because no design is perfect, it means that after you've saturated the market with one design you can sell it another one. You'd think more companies would follow Apple's lead, but design is harder than it looks, and most tech people can't get past their "more is better" mentality.

Re: It's win-win.

[macs4all]

Yes, when the iPhone came out, Nokia's phones could already take great pictures, send all sorts of messages, open documents, run real apps and include 3G radios.

...And look at Nokia Go... Down the Drain.

Does Tag really think that significant number of people in the luxury watch market actually use Android?

People generally will gravitate toward a peripheral product (watch) that is well-supported by the main product (phone).

And I would be willing to bet that most people that would be the demographic for a Tag Huerer watch are not running Android.

Jus' sayin'...

Re:It's win-win.

[dimeglio]

But a smart watch? It adds no actual value to its user, it is exclusively a way of telling the world that you are stupid and rich enough to not care about how you spend money; a fashion statement.

Why some people on tech boards so upset with smart watches? Is it because helps make technology available to the masses? I don't get it.

Re:It's win-win.

[jandersen]

Why some people on tech boards so upset with smart watches? Is it because helps make technology available to the masses? I don't get it.

I wouldn't say I'm upset, but I think it is in the nature of engineers and scientists - of which there are a fair few - to look at things from an analytical point of view: what are the merits, or weaknesses of something? To me, and to many with a background in engineering, how something looks or whether it will make you stand out as a fashion icon is either irrelevant or unwelcome, even to the extent that if I have to choose a tool, I will stay away from ones that seem to have been designed to look good, based on the suspicion that I would be paying more than it was worth. After all, as somebody who knows how digital equipment and the SW that goes with it are made, I am convinced that smartwatches are without exception overpriced crap - I could have done better.

A good, mechanical clock, on the other hand, is the result of REAL skill. I'm not sure I would be able to learn every step of the process; I respect that a lot.

Re:It's win-win.

[dimeglio]

So if your field was mechanical engineering then your opinion would like have been different. Doesn't mean one should have less respect for the skills required to build either.

Re: It's win-win.

[HornWumpus]

Tag people likely run a typical mix of phones.

But real expensive watch people don't use smartphones at all. Smartphones are a shitty substitute for a human personal assistant (with a smartphone).

Re:It's win-win.

[hondo77]

To me, and to many with a background in engineering, how something looks or whether it will make you stand out as a fashion icon is either irrelevant or unwelcome...

Which is why it is so funny to see nerds predict the failure of a fashion accessory, given that fashion is something they likely know nothing about.

Re: It's win-win.

[macs4all]

...real expensive watch people don't use smartphones at all. Smartphones are a shitty substitute for a human personal assistant (with a smartphone).

You're right about that!

"Price Structures"

[Anonymous Coward]

with price structures and functionality details announced shortly before its release

Anything with "price structures" is going to be too expensive.

Re:"Price Structures"

[blackest_k]

Why on earth would they want to do that? The thing should cost more its a marketing piece, a regular google watch now that should priced below or competitively with Apples version.

Watch and learn, young'uns

[melted]

This is what desperation looks like. Paraphrasing Vic Gundotra (of Google+ "fame"): three turkeys don't make an eagle.

Re:Watch and learn, young'uns

[aliquis]

This is what desperation looks like.

http://www.comedyflavors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5.jpg

Not a watch

[sunderland56]

A watch is a mechanical timepiece you wear on your wrist. The Apple product mentioned is a small computer you wear on your wrist.

Expensive watches are mainly expensive because of the internals, not because of the case. Sure, gold/silver/etc will drive up the price - but a good mechanical watch in a stanless steel case can still cost $10,000 - because of the intricate, hand-assembled internals. Replace those internals with $10 worth of silicon circuitry and a display, and it won't be worth $10K any more, even though there's the same name on the face.

Assuming that all things you wear on your wrist are interchangeable is like assuming all automobiles are interchangeable. Taking an Aston Martin and replacing the engine/transmission/driveline with one from a Ford Focus isn't going to create a desirable vehicle, and it won't be worth $140,000.

Re:Not a watch

[ZipK]

but a good mechanical watch in a stanless steel case can still cost $10,000 - because of the intricate, hand-assembled internals

A good mechanical watch in a stainless steel case costs a few hundred dollars or less. $10,000 watches are jewelry whose price is inflated primarily by artificial scarcity and brand management.

Re:Not a watch

[Jack Griffin]

A watch is a mechanical timepiece you wear on your wrist. The Apple product mentioned is a small computer you wear on your wrist.

And let's face it, the Apple watch is a copy of existing Samsung/LG/Pebble device (even if Apple thought it up first), and now Google is playing me too. there's Nothing says luxury like copying a copy...

Re:Not a watch

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't criticising Omega. Well except for the really high prices and wanting to be like Rolex in the image department. But, they did something no other watch manufacturer has done. And that is to bring Daniels's Co-Axial Escapement to the mass market. Doing an exotic escapment can be done, look to tourbillions and other similar mechanisms. But they are not mass produced (which doesn't mean they can't be). Omega has democratized a revolution in horology. And for that they must be complimented.

Re:Not a watch

[thegarbz]

That depends if your watch just ticks the time or has one of several complications which are incredibly intricate and difficult to design and assemble. You won't find a good mechanical watch with chronograph, self winding mechanism, perpetual calendar, etc for a few hundred, even if you put it in a cardboard case.

Re:Not a watch

[w3woody]

Try "thousands", if the movement is built in-house and has more than a couple of complications. Ah, hell; try hundreds of thousands for a custom watch movement with more than a handful of complications--mostly due to engineering costs of designing the movement, which can take years. And when you get to the extreme high end of the watch movement market, they start becoming small analog computers, such as this Patek Philippe pocket watch, which has a complication which calculates the sidereal day, and was constructed in 1933. Or this Jaeger-LeCoultre, which consists of over 1400 individual parts and 26 separate complications.

Re:Not a watch

[Hognoxious]

A watch is a mechanical timepiece you wear on your wrist.

So a pocket watch isn't a watch, and neither is a digital watch?

Re:Not a watch

[w3woody]

Rolex, in fact, hand-manufactures its own movements. Some processes of the manufacturing process do use some degree of automation, and of course a number of jigs are used during the assembly process. But they are hand-built movements built internally by Rolex.

The reason why people think Rolex outsources their movements is because Rolex doesn't talk much about their movements, and because Rolex used to use Zenith watch movements in some of their watches, such as the Daytona. (Since 2000, the Daytona has used an in-house movement--and I suspect this move to bring all their movements in-house is what drove Zenith to release their own complete watches.)

Omegas, on the other hand, mostly uses mass-manufactured ETA movements rather than using movements made in-house. While ETA movements are certainly of a much higher quality than mass-manufactured movements from China, they are still basically mass-produced watch movements.

Re:Not a watch

[aaaaaaargh!]

That's not entirely true. There are watches with standard movements that are not handmade except for final assembly. These are relatively cheap, and most of the popular garbage/fake brands belong to this category. Some of them bought a name that rings a bell, but has in reality no real tradition in watch making or has been revived only for the branding.

But there are also chronographs whose movements are assembled by hand, and these are, for obvious reasons, very expensive. There are also huge differences in overall quality and precision of mechanical watches. For example, you will definitely not find a cheap mechanical watch that is in fact waterproof (and doesn't just claim to be). That's because it's damn hard to make a mechanical watch waterproof.

Re:Not a watch

[JanneM]

A watch is a mechanical timepiece you wear on your wrist.

No. A watch is a piece of jewellery you wear on your wrist. The only difference between a wristwatch on one hand and a pendant, a bracelet or a brooch on the other is that a watch is the only widely allowed jewellery (other than a wedding ring) for men. Of course, the intricate mechanics and technical craftmanship is an added appeal, though the actual function of telling time is just a bonus, not the main point.

And that explains why there are such a large number of watchmakers, and such a huge number of models; with jewellery, the last thing you want is to wear the same thing as everybody else.

Re:Not a watch

[Cederic]

Omegas, on the other hand, mostly uses mass-manufactured ETA movements rather than using movements made in-house.

I just randomly clicked on a dozen watches on Omega's "Products" page and eleven of them have Omega movements, with the twelfth not specifying (and being a quartz movement).

That doesn't mean that they're not made in an ETA factory, but as far as I can tell Omega were taking ETA or Piguet movements and enhancing them to improve accuracy - looks like that's the case with my watch.

The new watches are often Omega designed calibers, although again probably taking advantage of the ETA factories - they're both part of Swatch so doesn't make sense to duplicate facilities.

The issue I have with Rolex is that their watches are just damned ugly. Others disagree :)

Re:Not a watch

[macs4all]

And let's face it, the Apple watch is a copy of existing Samsung/LG/Pebble device (even if Apple thought it up first)

Ok, that's a ridiculous statement.

1. How can something (the Apple watch) be a "copy" of something if they thought-it-up first?

2. Each of the Smartwatches you mentioned has enough "uniqueness" to not be considered a simple "copy" of the other(s). That's like saying that all mechanical watches that have a "Calendar" function (complication?) are somehow "Copies" of whoever put the first "date" function on a watch.

Re:Not a watch

[HornWumpus]

For five million dollars, we all know what one of those 'features' better be!

David Letterman (para)

Re:Not a watch

[Jack Griffin]

And let's face it, the Apple watch is a copy of existing Samsung/LG/Pebble device (even if Apple thought it up first)

Ok, that's a ridiculous statement. 1. How can something (the Apple watch) be a "copy" of something if they thought-it-up first? Because they only though of the concept, not the implementation. If every man and his dog release a product before you then you are still derivative. 2. Each of the Smartwatches you mentioned has enough "uniqueness" to not be considered a simple "copy" of the other(s). That's like saying that all mechanical watches that have a "Calendar" function (complication?) are somehow "Copies" of whoever put the first "date" function on a watch.

Maybe in your world, but in mine smart watches just like PC's in the 90's. No amount of fancy case work changes the fact that it's just a computer that will be outdated in a couple of years like the rest. Unlike a PC however there is not the same market or demand for a smart watch, the whole idea is just a gimmick.
The differentiators for real watches is that people don't buy them for the technology. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

It's lose-lose

[frovingslosh]

People looking to spend 10 grand on a watch want a Rolex or some other quality brand that will last a lifetime and that they can pass on in their will, not some junk fad that will be obsolete in 24 months. Google and Intel will pay dearly for this mistake.

This will not be Intel's first time to fail in the watch business, but their last failure was not nearly as spectacular as this will be.

Re: It's lose-lose

[Anonymous Coward]

Rolex is not a quality brand. They only sell because of it being a status symbol. In fact, their timekeeping abilities are worse than many of the middle priced watches ($200-500 range)

Re: It's lose-lose

[thegarbz]

Quality and time keeping ability are not the same thing. Any and every $10 Timex will be more accurate than an officially certified swiss chronometer. Rolex, Omega, etc bring to you quality construction and style (they are jewelry items). Like my grandpa's Omega that I have still ticking away at home after 75 years, or my dad's Rolex that has been on his wrist every day for the last 40 years.

Re:It's lose-lose

[Bob the Super Hamste]

People looking to spend 10 grand on a watch want a Rolex or some other quality brand that will last a lifetime and that they can pass on in their will, not some junk fad that will be obsolete in 24 months

Maybe not. As others have stated the people who buy a Rolex are buying a status symbol or jewelry. It is easily recognizable and a way to set your self apart from the unwashed masses since even they recognize a Rolex. Having never owned a Rolex I can't speak to their reliability or accuracy but it looks like they are not better than my very good but when new inexpensive mechanical Benrus made US military watch (federal stock number 6645-066-4279) for accuracy, it runs 3 seconds +/-1 fast per day verified against a proper time and frequency device. This is a watch that is just a few months shy of being 50 years old and has seen harsher conditions than probably any Rolex as it was used in the Vietnam war, and I have taken it out hunting and camping a number of times. The biggest difference between a Rolex and my Benrus is that the Rolex is a somewhat functional piece of jewelry while my Benrus is just a functional piece. Personally I think the clean design of the Benrus with it's matte finished parkerized stainless steel case, black dia with white and yellow markings is a much cleaner look instead of the look at me style of a Rolex.

Read between the lines though.

[popo]

It's *extremely* telling that Google is running after luxury brands.

Why?

Because everyone at Apple and Google know the truth. And the truth is: This is not a product anyone needs.

How do you sell something nobody actually needs? Well... Nobody knows the answer to that question better than watch manufacturers.

The immediate flight to "luxury" speaks volumes about the actual utility value of these silly gadgets.

Re:Read between the lines though.

[SternisheFan]

"How do you sell something nobody actually needs?" That's where advertising comes in. The whole point of dvertising is to get people to buy things that they don't really need, and to "sell happiness". To convince us that if we bought and owned (insert Product here), we'd feel happy about ourselves.

Re:Read between the lines though.

[dAzED1]

Do you *need* beer? Do you *need* steak vrs a bowl of red beans and rice? A nice bed in a comfortable house, instead of some straw on the floor of a cave? 99.99% of your life is "luxury." That said, I have had the Samsung Gear Fit since last fall (my previous phone was stolen just days after the S5 Active came out, so I got it and the Gear Fit). I've found the watch to be extremely helpful in many ways, and have even regained my very lost habit of occassionally checking my watch (I went what, almost 15 years without one) to actually know what time it is. Then there's the sleep patterns, exercise tracking, etc...

Re:Read between the lines though.

[dimeglio]

"How do you sell something nobody actually needs?"

Ok but what are people to do with their extremely disposable income? Luxury items does serve an important purpose. Remember that an internet connected computer is a luxury item to many on this planet.

Re:Read between the lines though.

[mattack2]

The computer you're posting from isn't something that anyone _needs_.

You need water, air, food, and shelter.

The watch is $8k and also party digital

[SuperKendall]

So this watch starts at $8k. Butt that's OK right, because not Apple?

Seeing as how it is also partly digital, doesn't it in theory have the same complaints others were leveling against the Apple Watch - that it would be obsolete in a few years, instead of lasting multiple generations?

To me this is watch makers going the wrong direction. Instead of watch makers marching over to Apple Hill and fighting on the turf of Watch Computer, it seems like watch makers should make ever more amazing mechanical gadgets that are totally distinct from the Apple Watch.

It will be interesting to see what they deliver, but by the time it comes out we'll have seen at least one major software rev of the watch and quite a few applications delivered.

Re:The watch is $8k and also party digital

[Bob the Super Hamste]

it seems like watch makers should make ever more amazing mechanical gadgets that are totally distinct from the Apple Watch.

While I would agree, this isn't about making an amazing device it is about making an amazingly expensive device. I am half tempted to see if I can get a one off hand made mechanical watch of amazing accuracy. Then again this would be a one off watch made to be extremely accurate, with an extremely long lifetime so the cost would probably end up being greater than most high end watches which I couldn't afford anyway. Maybe some day I will win the lottery and then I can have really nice things.

Re:The watch is $8k and also party digital

[Cederic]

it seems like watch makers should make ever more amazing mechanical gadgets that are totally distinct from the Apple Watch.

How about a digital mechanical watch:
http://www.luxurybazaar.com/it...

Or a watch using air turbines for regulation, a retrograde scale and telescopic hands to keep a fixed distance from it (and no, I don't know what I just talked about):
http://www.coolest-gadgets.com...

Engineering excellence:
http://www.harrywinston.com/st...

Or a simple looking mechanical watch that manages to be a perpetual calendar, including daylight savings, covering every timezone out there - including India, at a half-hour offset, and obscure 1/4 hour offset ones I hadn't even heard of:
http://www.glashuette-original...

Just designing how something like that might work is insanely fun (erm, difficult), let alone translating that theoretical design into an actual one, taking into account the behaviours of the materials from which it's built. Building it's almost the easy bit, and you're handcrafting that thing from start to finish.

Re:The watch is $8k and also party digital

[Cederic]

Try http://www.onlywatch.com/

Some of them go as low as $10k
The nicest ones are rather more than that :)

Re:The watch is $8k and also party digital

[Bob the Super Hamste]

It would be neat to see those watches but $10k is probably about what I would want custom made with no brand attached would probably costs, maybe a bit less.

I was thinking of seeing about getting a custom gear train made from some lighter weight materials like titanium instead of brass and stainless steel. Also in addition to the standard jewel bearings have the moving parts coated with exotic surface treatments like DLC to further decrease the friction in the gear train as well as decreasing the wear. I would also probably consider have it with a tourbillon as it sounds like having one of those does allow for the potential of greater accuracy. So basically taking things to their logical extreme.

Re:The watch is $8k and also party digital

[Cederic]

The tourbillon alone is going to break your budget.

Be cautious about the materials for the movement too - several of them are chosen for their behaviour under tension, how they respond to temperature change, etc - titanium is light but people invent new materials just to marginally increase accuracy.

Re:The watch is $8k and also party digital

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Like I said I need to win the lottery. As far as materials go I don't know what is the best and am not at watch maker but from my limited knowledge it seems that something like titanium would be better as I believe that it holds it's dimensions better with temperature change than steel does. My understanding was that gear train and escapement are what you want to have be very light and dimensionally stable so it does seem like a better material, especially since it isn't magnetic, but hey I I'm not set on and specific material. Also I may not be aware of the existing use of exotic surface treatments but it does seem like something that would lower friction substantially as well as decrease wear on the fast moving parts. For the various springs I have no idea what would be the best material and that titanium wouldn't be it, but it does sound like that is pretty much a solved problem.

A watch like what I want would seem to be more of a retirement gift to my self at this point and I know it will be expensive, just not how expensive. I don't really have a budget as at this point it is just a pie in the sky thing.

Fickle

[symes]

Personally, I like Tag Heur watches. But I would not buy a Tag smart watch. The reason is that in spending a decent sum of money on a watch you are hoping to get a time piece that will last. Tags just about fall into that category, certainly going by resale prices. Why would you spend money on a watch whose insides will become defunct in a few years? It makes zero sense. I would much rather buy a cheap watch that I am comfortable throwing out in a few years, if at all.

Re:Fickle

[JamesRay87]

Tag is becoming opportunist in this scene , it is getting place among big names to aggrandize flow of profit , but it will be productive step for tag as this venture will definitely make handsome profit.

Yeah, this will go as well as a lead balloon.

[w3woody]

I own a Rolex DateJust in Gold and Stainless Steel, and someday I'd like to own a Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Ultra Thin Moon 39 in Stainless Steel, as well as a Breitling Navitimer 01. For my father's 70th birthday we bought him a Navitimer 01, which he just loves. (My father and I are both private pilots.)

Here's the thing about luxury watches: for women, you can wear necklaces, wrist bands, rings and earrings. But for men, the only pieces of jewelry that a man can wear (and get away with it) is cufflinks, a tie clip and a luxury watch. And if you're not wearing a shirt with french cuffs, or wearing a tie, then all that is left is the watch.

So basically a luxury watch is jewelry. Functional jewelry, but jewelry all the same. And like all jewelry, if its taken care of you can inherit it from your grandparents (as my wife inherited some pieces), you can receive it when you are young and still wear it when you're old, and you can pass it down to your grandchildren.

When you start looking at luxury watches, you find there are two types: those which use an in-house built movement built by craftsmen who sweat the details and who create all sorts of intricate complications which do interesting things (like keep accurate time, provide a stopwatch function, show the phase of the moon, the day of the month, the month of the year), and those who buy an off-the-shelf movement and wrap it in gaudy jewelry.

From what I've read (I'm not a collector but I'd like to be one someday if I ever really strike it extremely rich, because mechanical wrist watches fascinate me no end), watches from watchmakers who build their own movements are highly respected. Watches from watchmakers who buy their movements from third parties, however, are not very well respected. And the worst are those who use quartz movements: essentially an electric powered watch movement regulated by a small oscillator crystal. Like about 1/3rd of Tag Heuer's product line, many running up into the 10's of thousands, which horticulturally have more in common with a cheap Casio than with an A. Lang & Sohne.

This is why I think luxury smart watches will be an unmitigated disaster. Sure, some people will buy them--because some people have more money than God, and to be able to show off a $10,000 smart watch that you're just going to toss away in a couple of years when the electronics are out of date would be the height of "one upping the Joneses." But I cannot see them being any more interesting to someone fascinated by mechanical watches than a quartz Tag Heuer--it's the sort of watch someone with no sense of connection to the past or any sense of connection to the tradition of hand-crafted watches would shove in your face to exclaim how much better they are than you.

You know: crass assholes.

Re:Yeah, this will go as well as a lead balloon.

[AmiMoJo]

But for men, the only pieces of jewelry that a man can wear (and get away with it) is cufflinks, a tie clip and a luxury watch. And if you're not wearing a shirt with french cuffs, or wearing a tie, then all that is left is the watch.

Almost, but I suppose nobody will buy a smart cock-ring.

Re:Yeah, this will go as well as a lead balloon.

[w3woody]

No, I'm an arrogant asshole, not a crass one.

Re:Yeah, this will go as well as a lead balloon.

[oldmac31310]

If you were as arrogant as you think you are you wouldn't have condescended to reply! Come on, it's time to up your arrogance game.

Re:Yeah, this will go as well as a lead balloon.

[w3woody]

If you were as arrogant as you think you are you wouldn't have condescended to reply!

So you're saying that my reply saying I'm arrogant cannot possibly be arrogant because I replied?

Ummmm...

Re:Yeah, this will go as well as a lead balloon.

[oldmac31310]

Yes, I am saying exactly that. Good day sir.

Intel???

[sribe]

Instant loser right out of the gate. Intel cannot touch ARM for power efficiency. They have to pay US$ billions to get anybody to use their processors in tablets; almost nobody uses them in phones; using them in a watch is insanity.

Oh, wait, I forgot: TAG tends to make watches that are fucking HUGE. Never mind, TAG + Intel in a watch is actually a perfect match ;-)

Is it just me or...

[oldmac31310]

Watches? The last thing I want is a thing on my wrist. As soon as I got a cell phone - what? 13 years ago - watchless. Stupid unnecessary things. Rings, tattoos, ear rings - fuck all of that stupid shit. Cue boring fuckwads with stories of their grandfathers watches handed down, blah, blah...pathetic.

Did you mean:

[TeknoHog]

#heuer -- jeden Tag ein Hash-Tag _\|/_

Tougher Competition

[JamesRay87]

These smart watches are going to build tougher competition among giants but it will be confusing for average buyer to choose which big brand to buy ,, anyways, lets see what comes up ...

My light weight wrist-watch with the 7 yr battery

[lsatenstein]

I bought a Seiko, because it was thin, light-weight, and had an approximate 7 year battery life. After 7 years, I bought a new battery, installed for $10.00

So, I have to change the date 6 times a year, and adjust for leapyear twice a year. Big-deal. But my watch can be immersed in water, and still keep on functioning. Newer electronic watches from the consumer market now are perpetual. Date, self adjusts, and the solar panel in the watch keeps the internal battery charged. Why would I need more. Do I need to text to my watch during meal times?