Apple Watch. A Casual Observation

So Apple finally introduces the Apple Watch and everyone is going into frenzy. As I've said it many times before, I'm not the target market for any smart wearables. However, that isn't going to stop anyone else in my household from getting one.

For the first time in a long time, my wife was fixated and I can see she is very interested; especially in the gold red strap one pictured above. She is not a watch wearer despite being married to a watch collector. I've bought her many high-end Swiss watches and she simply doesn't wear them. She isn't into tech gadgets either. She is happily content with her hand-me down electronics from me.

This is were most men have lost sight of what is happening. Everyone is debating how fugly it looks. Everyone is comparing it to the Motorola 360. It isn't about your personal taste. Taste and style is subjective. I've been in watch debates since 1994 on Usenet. Rolex vs Omega, Breguet vs Patek, Zenith vs IWC. So I'm a veteran at this and I've learned from a long, long,long time ago, taste is entirely subjective. Having said that, I think the Apple watch has a strong chance of succeeding in the mall watch category from $300-$1200. The High End Swiss watches ($4,000 and up) I enjoy won't be affected. I strongly believe this but the low-end is ripe for the taking.

Why? Build quality, presentation and marketing.

I am very impressed with the website and overall presentation.

The build quality is impeccable. I am studying the details. The raised and bezeled sapphire glass, the edge chamfer, the grain of the matte SS on the bracelet, the meshed Milanese strap,etc. These are all top notch detailing that no one in this market (Smartwatch) has. Pebble doesn't have it. Nor does Samsung and Motorola. Also, for the first time, I never saw an Apple product that lists material properties until now. This is what the Swiss do. They boldly note the SS is 316L (high grade SS steel found on Omegas, Panerai,etc). For comparison, Samsung, LG uses 304 steel. Motorola is absent in this disclosure. They also note the use of Sapphire; the pre-requisite for a premium timepiece. Note my use of the word premium instead of luxury. These are two distinct markets.

The premium market consist of fashion brands. These are Movado, Michael Kors, Armani, Gucci, Burberry and the likes. These are brands with absolutely zero horological domain expertise. They often use cheap $5-10 quartz movement with cheap B-O-M material cost and sell watches in the $300-1200 market. We call these "mall watches." They're often found at department stores rather than high end watch boutiques. The Apple watch competes with these.  Yes, it competes with Samsung and Motorola but on the grander scope of things, based on the projected price point, the "mall watch" is the target. I strongly believe this because their recent executive hires are people with retail channel distribution in the luxury/premium markets. I am guessing they want to sell this at airport kiosks and high end malls around the world - Frankfurt, Dubai, Tokyo. Why else would they poach a Tag Huer and enlist Burberry's top exec?  They invited fashion bloggers, creative directors of most fashion rags to the Apple watch unveiling during the busiest Fashion week in New York. While the bottom of the pole reporters were in New York, you can see many of the Creative Editors of Vogue, Vogue UK, Marie Claire, InstaStyle in Cupertino.

Back to my wife. She was fixated and her eyes were all on the gold models. Some of you guys out there are still stuck on the round circle and do not think a square watch will work. Well, let me present to you the Cartier Santos. A $5,000 watch. Women love this watch. They have no problem with rectangular time pieces.

Here is the Santos in a sports setting.

Now look at the Apple watch in the marketing promo. On women. I assume these are the 38mm models.

They're not Cartiers. My wife would never spend $5000 on a Cartier (she has no problem with me spending that on my mens' watches). Simply, she doesn't see the value. However, a $1000 gold case and red leather deployant strap is a different thing altogether. The Apple watch looks inoffensive. It is also highly customizable. In short, it hits the target market she is in. The Premium, fashion soccer mom market.

My point is this, this may not be attractive to you (or me), it is attractive to others. Now, I showed her the Motorola 360 to get her opinion. I showed her a picture of something she has context with - 40mm sports watch. Here is a picture I found on the internet that gives a good comparison.  That is a 46mm Motorola 360 next to what appears to be a Rolex Sub (or knockoff) which is 40mm.

Just for context, 40mm Rolex on Charlize Theron. This is a "large's" man's watch. To her, the Moto 360 is comically too big. This is before she even put eyes on the flat tire screen.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I am starting to think Apple may be on to something. Despite my Luddite attachments to my Rolex and Omegas, I think there is a market here. It may not appeal to me but I can see it appealing to my significant others.

Update: Here is a really good post why Square/Rectangular screens are better for swatch watches. It is a very compelling argument. You basically need a larger circle to cover equal amount of content when compared to an equal size rectangular screen. With the smaller the screen (38mm for women), touch UI will be exponentially harder to work with. This validates the use of a digital crown in the design process.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=19627830&postcount=21

iWatch, SmartWatches, Moto 360, Wearables. Again.

(My 4 year old son at the time trying to figure out which watch he will inherit from me)

This is a topic that simply cannot die. For over 25 years, I've been known as the "watch guy" in my circles. Yeah, I'm the guy with the fetish for expensive Swiss mechanical watches. So obviously, everyone comes to me for my watch opinions. With the introduction of the Motorola 360 and the anticipation of the Apple iWatch, more and more people are coming to me for my advice and opinion.

Well, lets do this one more time.

Will I buy one?

No, I won't buy something to replace my Swiss watches. I will not buy a Smartwatch. However, I am open to a fitness band. I will buy something that can be worn on my right wrist; reserving my left arm for watches. I'm in my forties and health is a big deal to me. I have friends dying right and left. I do have medical and health issues so a compelling health sensor would make me buy a wearable.

Moto 360

It is an ugly watch and that is my opinion. I'm not into the flat tire design (where the bottom is cut-off). That is my biggest complaint. However, taste is entirely subjective. It also looks to much like it is trying too hard to be an ultra-thin museum piece when it isn't. It is girthy. I also looks like a cheap "Mall fashion watch" in the theme of Movado and Rado. Those are quartz watches I don't like except those are ultrathin and quartz makes sense. The 360 is so big, you can fit literally a pocket watch movement in it like the Unitas 697. In short, it looks like a girly fashion watch yet at the same time, it is monstrously big.

I prefer the LG G R watch. The thicker bezel doesn't bother me on the LG because if you look at any Swiss watch I have, they all have bezels. They also all have traditional lugs to swap straps. Here is the LG R watch. It looks like a fashion watch too but it is more pleasant in my eyes. I read that people don't like the thick bezel nor the lugs. Obviously,  those people prefer the minimalist, cleaner 360.

That is just my opinion on looks.

Most importantly, I think the 46mm size of the Moto360 is way too big. Monstrously big for what it is. Arstechnica did a comparison (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/09/moto-360-review-beautiful-outside-ugly-inside/) and their comparison is a bit off and let me explain.

36mm is a women's size. Small Men's size are 38mm like the Datejust and Explorer. 42mm is a slight creep from the average large men's watch.

Now for some context.
40mm is large. It has been considered large for over 50 years; notably with watches like the Rolex Submariner, GMT Master. Those are manly watches. Here is Charlize Theron wearing a 40mm Rolex. It is a large watch.

Most of my watches are 40mm and I'm comfortable with that. 40mm with 20mm strap width is the perfect Men's large watch size. A good majority of the historical iconic classics fit in that dimension. Here is what most Alpha males historically worn. 40mm.

Here you have Che with a Submariner, Apollo 13 Jack Swiggert with his GMT Master, and various James Bond with their 40mm Submariners.

In short, your masculinity was never at question with 40mm. Every cool male figures in my life wore 38 to 40mm. 38mm was considered to be on the dressy side and 40mm was the casual, sporty side. All the Hollywood actors, test pilots (Chuck Yeager), NASA astronauts, explorers wore 40mm. Even the high end tactical secret forces of the her Royal Navy special ops wore 40mm. It was a successful recipe for Rolex for over 60 years. It was the optimal size.

Here is a comparison to a Rolex 40mm. See why I call it comically big?

Then around the mid 1990s, Panerai broke the mold and introduced the 44mm Panerais. Hollywood macho celebrities like Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Statham, and many leading men started to wear Panerais because they were over-size and blingy without the negative Rolex stigma. Pictured below is a 44mm Panerai.

Now, there are some outliers. Panerai does make some models in 47mm.

Obliviously, you can tell it is an outlier size. Some say you need the persona and physical stature to pull that off. The Moto 360 is not that far off the mark at 46mm. Except, a 44-47mm Panerai looks really masculine and macho. A Moto 360 still looks nerdy. In short, the entire cast of the Expendables wear 42-47mm watches. Compare an A-List Hollywood action star to your typical nerd geek who will be wearing a smart watch that are both similar in size. This pretty much eliminates a large percentage of the population; women.

Outlier size won't appeal to many. I wear a 44mm Panerai on occasion and I can feel the heft and that watch is the most banged up watch I have. I'm always accidentally banging that watch on doors,tables,etc. Other Panerai owners feel the same.

Omega and Rolex started to supersize to 42-43mm as well. With this over-size watch craze, some of the younger generation think 40mm is no longer large but regular size. There is a very tangible big difference every mm you grow on in size on a watch. The perception is much more so than the weight.

Battery life

Like I wrote earlier, I'm into Swiss mechanical watches. None of my watches need batteries. They are infinitely powered. The whole idea of 1 to 2 day battery life is alien to me. I'd go bat-crazy. I remember a few times where I was hospitalized for 2 days and all my electronic gadgets died on me - iPad, laptop, smartphones. The only thing keeping me sane was my watch. I've been on travelling expeditions (buses, trains) in 3rd world countries for days. No smartwatch would obviously work in that scenario.

They need to obviously work on the battery life.


What would I buy if I did?
It is hard to say. I may get one for novelty purposes but nothing is going to replace my Panerai, Rolex, Omega or whatever I have.

The idea of a square case doesn't bother me. It doesn't have to be circular as I'm not looking for a watch. I prefer long battery life. But I've seen decent square watch cases like JLC and the Heuer Monaco.

But as I noted, I'm not looking for a watch per se. I'm open to a fitness band tracker I can wear on my right wrist.

I would go for something like this. Yes, I know some of you guys will think of it as a girly bracelet but I don't have those hang-ups. I'm wearing some 40-44mm beefy Swiss tool watch on my left wrist so I don't care.

Now, the thing that would make me instantly buy something like this are:

1. Battery embedded in the bracelet. This would compensate for the short battery life that is causing problems for many of the OEMs. If the whole bracelet was an extended battery and if it gets 4 days of use, I'm sold. But I would only buy something like this on the premise of it being a fitness, health sensor band. If it is mainly a watch, I'd have to consider my techy gadget curiosity over my horological passions.

2. Some extended phone calling capabilities without the need to tether a phone. If Apple was able to convince Phone carriers to allow multi-shared SIM plans, that could be a big. The idea is with two SIMs, you can share the same phone number and capabilities on your phone and wearable. So if the phone is in your car while at the gym, you can make calls with just your wearable. This would be an instant buy for me. However, I doubt this would ever happen.

Will Apple kill the Swiss industry.

I see this question come up a lot. Answer. No. That is a big pipe dream. Rolex is a 8 billion dollar company with 4.5b in annual sales. They generate over 800,000 Chronometers. Their average watch sales for $8,000. SWATCH group, LVMH, Richemont are equally big. Boutiques like Patek and Lange Sohne will never be effected just as Ferrari will never be effected by Toyota. The comparisons and analogies to Blackberry/Nokia are so way off the mark. We are talking about luxury goods here. A different dynamic. I know people who drop $25,000 on a Panerai and a $250 smartwatch isn't going to sway their opinion. People buy engagement and wedding gifts that are suppose to last and be used for decades.

There are a million reasons why the whole idea is nonsense. No one is going to replace their high end watches. Smart watches will be disruptive. Sure. It will effect the market under $1,000. Possibly even encroach in the $1,500 range. Casio, Garmin, and many of the fitness trackers will be effected. Some of the mall fashion brands will be hurt - Coach, Armani, Gucci, and Movado. But that is about it.

But high end Swiss mechanical? No.  I buy watches because I like mechanical miniaturization. There is simply no comparison to something made from electronics with something made from hundreds of mechanized parts. Watches also appreciate in value over time. I buy them as life-long companions. I have some watches I bought new that are over 25 years old. They don't have the 2 year replacement/update cycle. I can hand down my watches to my kids so it is a generational thing. Craft. There are a million other reasons why Swiss watch buyers won't give in. It is mostly emotional and no form technical rationalization is going to change that. I have friends and family who are heavily tech and gadget oriented. Those with Swiss watches share my similar opinion. Nothing is going to replace their Rolex and Panerais.

Some guys save up years to buy their Omega Speedmaster because they were in awe with NASA. Some get Rolex Submariners because they remember their cool uncle or dad, or perhaps, James Bond. These are longings that many have as a kid until they grow up. No one is going to long for a disposable gadget. My son, who is six, really wants my Omega Seamaster and Speedmaster Professional. He's been stuck on those two watches since he was three. He also know they're special by observing how much care I take after them. An electronic gadget doesn't have those appeal.

I've been called an old fart for this Luddite reasoning and I'm OK with that. It is the same feeling art lovers will never replace an Rothko with some Adobe Illustrater drawing.

In closing, these are my thoughts for the time being.

Update: With the Apple Watch announced, here are my thoughts on another post.
http://fortysomethinggeek.blogspot.com/2014/09/apple-watch-casual-observation.html

Android Wear and the Moto 360

Google recently announced their new wearable platform, Android Wear. They will concentrate on watches first. The platform is suppose to extend the reaches of the Android eco-system to wearable gadgets.

One of the first announced piece comes from Motorola in the form of the moto 360.

And apparently, it is frothing with enthusiasm on the Internet. Really? Elegant? Classy? Yep, those are the remarks I've been reading. Really? The watch looks like cheap Movado, Citizen, mall watch knock-off. And another comment, why does the guy in the coffee shop  (pictured above) needs a cappucino AND an expresso? I get it, they want you to think he is some cool,hip dude with a cool, hip watch in a cool, hip coffee shop.

I have pretty high standards when it comes to wristwatches as many people know, I collect them. But this moto 360 is really ugly. It is the kind of watch you see on lay-away at the local mall.

I don't know enough about Android wear to even speculate but in terms of wrist-watches, I'll definitely stick to my mechanical Swiss made Chronometers. It must be my age but I don't see the appeal in these items as they're disposable. Unlike an IWC or Breguet, these aren't the type of heirlooms you want to pass down another generation. Unlike a Rolex Sea-Dweller, Omega Planet Ocean, Blancpain 50 Fathom, or Panerai Luminor, these aren't the type of watches you want to take rock climbing or snorkeling. I like patina on my watches. I wear my Omega Seamaster Professional SM300 to fix the car, rigorous housework, or anything dangerous. So what if my $2,000 beater diver's watch gets scratched up. It gives it a natural aging patina. Electronic gadgets? They look like crap when they're all scratched up. Battery life? Who knows. All I know is when I am on vacation, I don't even want to think about an electrical wall outlet. Which reminds me of my youth; backpacking abroad. I remember having nothing but my Rolex GMT Master II in Bali for a week. I never had to plug it in every night. Never took it off to do any physical activity. I can't imagine the same thing with one of these electronic watches that need daily recharging.


It must be the sign of the times or I am getting old.This is an area I won't even get into.

Links: 

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/sharing-whats-up-our-sleeve-android.html

http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/18/google-android-wear/

http://motorola-blog.blogspot.com/2014/03/moto-360-its-time.html