10 ms·

You moved from high-end automatic watches to a smartwatch. In the long term, it's worth considering whether people will move from smartwatches to mechanical one

You moved from high-end automatic watches to a smartwatch. In the long term, it's worth considering whether people will move from smartwatches to mechanical ones. If people get used to the features of an iWatch in their 20's, will they ever decide it's worth spending many thousands of dollars on a piece of jewelry that displaces all that functionality? If not, automatics may go the way of film cameras. Whatever their merits as engineering marvels, expensive watches are Veblen goods that are worn to display wealth. Similar mechanisms can be put into pocket watches, but that's a much smaller market. Expensive watches have the appeal they do because they fall on the same continuum as everyone else's watch. Change the middle of the watch market and the current high end will look as absurd as a Vertu brick phone.

mbenjaminsmith 12y ago
> If not, automatics may go the way of film cameras. I think you're missing the fact that the mechanical watch industry is already post-apocalypse (i.e., the Quartz Crisis that started in the 70s). The current mechanical watch industry does not exist for anything other than emotional reasons and won't see that much of an impact from another $400 electronic watch. As a collector myself I think it's an interesting development for the industry and I'm sure I'll buy some version of the Apple Watch. I doubt it will replace one of my mechanicals as a daily wear.
- Aloha 12y ago
  I'd not go that far - look at the Seiko 5, which I find more attractive than most of the Kinetic models anyhow, and gray market in the US, its much much cheaper, several years ago I bought two identical ones for my 30th birthday, should last me my lifetime.
  - maigret 12y ago
    The Seiko 5 has an amazing ecosystem of customized parts by the way, showing that mechanical watches can be a dream for tinkerers.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - ansgri 12y ago
    Oh how I didn't know about the Seiko 5 at all? Was looking for a sports-appropriate watch recently, would prefer it to the eventually chosen Timex IQ Compass. Though the compass proved to be an useful complication!
  - user24 12y ago
    See also http://www.seiko5finder.com http://www.seiko5finder.com (not affiliated)
    - shellerik 12y ago
      Thanks for the link (41 yr old site creator). I only recently got interested in mechanical watches. It's fun to have a mechanical marvel on my wrist for those times when I don't want to reach into my pocket to tell the time using an electronic marvel. I'm not sure if I'd ever get a smart watch. Perhaps. I actually feel kind of attached to my automatic. If I stop wearing it for more than two days it will stop running. That just seems cruel to the little guy.
- deong 12y ago
  I guess his point is that the high-end mechanical watch market only exists at all because of, as you say, collectors. It's older people with a bit of cash to spend on a luxury item. But those 40 year-old people grew up with cheaper versions of the same thing, and so there was a recognizable appeal in the higher-end watches. If today's 20 year-olds all buy smart watches, will they want to spend four figures on a mechanical watch when they're 40 with a bit of cash?
  - canvia 12y ago
    Expensive watches are pointless vanity goods. I would hope that as a society we are educated enough in 20 years that people will use their excess resources to help others instead of purchasing expensive jewelery with virtually zero utility.
    - deong 12y ago
      I recommend diversifying your hopes for the future into a few more buckets, because any eggs you put in this particular basket aren't coming back.
      - canvia 12y ago
        I am in it for the karma not the eggs.
    - mmodahl 12y ago
      This is a really toxic view of consumption. What level of consumption is moral to you? Can I buy a pack of chewing gum if I earn $100k? What if buying a $100k watch is a smaller percentage of my income than that pack of chewing gum?
      - canvia 12y ago
        Chewing gum aids in oral hygiene, it has utility. The opportunity cost is hardly anything. The opportunity cost of something that exists purely for aesthetic purposes is 100% of the cost of the good. In this case you're talking $1,000+ for a watch. I am always reminded of the scene in Schindler's list where he looks at the additional things he could have sold or gone without to save lives. On my death bed I don't want to look back with regret and wonder how much more I could have done to help people if I wasn't acting selfishly. To me the moral level of consumption is as close to the minimum required to survive and make an optimal economic contribution to society. Everyone needs happiness and entertainment in their lives. The struggle is avoiding excess.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- cityhall 12y ago
  Mechanical watches don't require sacrificing many features vs. quartz. Other than not having to wind or set it as often, the only real advantage of quartz is price. That's what may change if these new smart watches find their killer app. No one really needed a calculator, heart beat monitor, or other gimmick on his wrist, so digital watches never pulled away on features. That might change now. Would I rather wear an intricate piece of jewelry or see why my phone vibrated without reaching into my pocket? It starts to be a different calculation.
blumkvist 12y ago
I find your analogy particularly fitting, albeit you miss the point, perhaps because you are not into either cameras or watches. Compact cameras are not doing too good, because you can shoot pictures with your phone. DSLR and mirrorless though, are doing swell, with even better projections. In the same way, I think low end watches (mechanical+smart) will suffer a big hit, but high end watches ($1k+ will not see any difference at all). It's just different market segments. You don't see Martinelli worried about Ikea opening a factory every eayr. They just sell to different people. I've tried to make that point to people who claim that Apple has ever shrinking market share in the smartphone market. It might seem so to a person who has no idea about marketing, but in reality, Apple's share in the high end segment of the market is increasing.
- mhaymo 12y ago
  The difference between cameras and watches is you can carry a smartphone and a DSLR. Unless you're going to start wearing two watches, you'll be giving up all the utility of a smartwatch for your wealth-indicator, which yes many people will be happy to do now, but that market can only shrink as the high-end smartwatch market grows.
  - jamespo 12y ago
    Although you have almost all of that functionality on your smartphone already.
  - lsc 12y ago
    I know several people that own $10K+ watches, and a larger group who own $1K+ watches None of them own only one super expensive watch... and a lot of them carry like three or four in a bag for different situations.
- cityhall 12y ago
  On the other hand, Leica and Hasselblad switched to digital along with everyone else. There's still a high end but it has to compete on technology, not just exclusivity. Watch purists may go the way of vinyl purists, slowly dying out as the competing technology offers more and more convenience.

mbenjaminsmith 12y ago

> If not, automatics may go the way of film cameras. I think you're missing the fact that the mechanical watch industry is already post-apocalypse (i.e., the Quartz Crisis that started in the 70s). The current mechanical watch industry does not exist for anything other than emotional reasons and won't see that much of an impact from another $400 electronic watch. As a collector myself I think it's an interesting development for the industry and I'm sure I'll buy some version of the Apple Watch. I doubt it will replace one of my mechanicals as a daily wear.

Aloha 12y ago
I'd not go that far - look at the Seiko 5, which I find more attractive than most of the Kinetic models anyhow, and gray market in the US, its much much cheaper, several years ago I bought two identical ones for my 30th birthday, should last me my lifetime.
- maigret 12y ago
  The Seiko 5 has an amazing ecosystem of customized parts by the way, showing that mechanical watches can be a dream for tinkerers.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ansgri 12y ago
  Oh how I didn't know about the Seiko 5 at all? Was looking for a sports-appropriate watch recently, would prefer it to the eventually chosen Timex IQ Compass. Though the compass proved to be an useful complication!
- user24 12y ago
  See also http://www.seiko5finder.com http://www.seiko5finder.com (not affiliated)
  - shellerik 12y ago
    Thanks for the link (41 yr old site creator). I only recently got interested in mechanical watches. It's fun to have a mechanical marvel on my wrist for those times when I don't want to reach into my pocket to tell the time using an electronic marvel. I'm not sure if I'd ever get a smart watch. Perhaps. I actually feel kind of attached to my automatic. If I stop wearing it for more than two days it will stop running. That just seems cruel to the little guy.
deong 12y ago
I guess his point is that the high-end mechanical watch market only exists at all because of, as you say, collectors. It's older people with a bit of cash to spend on a luxury item. But those 40 year-old people grew up with cheaper versions of the same thing, and so there was a recognizable appeal in the higher-end watches. If today's 20 year-olds all buy smart watches, will they want to spend four figures on a mechanical watch when they're 40 with a bit of cash?
- canvia 12y ago
  Expensive watches are pointless vanity goods. I would hope that as a society we are educated enough in 20 years that people will use their excess resources to help others instead of purchasing expensive jewelery with virtually zero utility.
  - deong 12y ago
    I recommend diversifying your hopes for the future into a few more buckets, because any eggs you put in this particular basket aren't coming back.
    - canvia 12y ago
      I am in it for the karma not the eggs.
  - mmodahl 12y ago
    This is a really toxic view of consumption. What level of consumption is moral to you? Can I buy a pack of chewing gum if I earn $100k? What if buying a $100k watch is a smaller percentage of my income than that pack of chewing gum?
    - canvia 12y ago
      Chewing gum aids in oral hygiene, it has utility. The opportunity cost is hardly anything. The opportunity cost of something that exists purely for aesthetic purposes is 100% of the cost of the good. In this case you're talking $1,000+ for a watch. I am always reminded of the scene in Schindler's list where he looks at the additional things he could have sold or gone without to save lives. On my death bed I don't want to look back with regret and wonder how much more I could have done to help people if I wasn't acting selfishly. To me the moral level of consumption is as close to the minimum required to survive and make an optimal economic contribution to society. Everyone needs happiness and entertainment in their lives. The struggle is avoiding excess.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
cityhall 12y ago
Mechanical watches don't require sacrificing many features vs. quartz. Other than not having to wind or set it as often, the only real advantage of quartz is price. That's what may change if these new smart watches find their killer app. No one really needed a calculator, heart beat monitor, or other gimmick on his wrist, so digital watches never pulled away on features. That might change now. Would I rather wear an intricate piece of jewelry or see why my phone vibrated without reaching into my pocket? It starts to be a different calculation.

blumkvist 12y ago

I find your analogy particularly fitting, albeit you miss the point, perhaps because you are not into either cameras or watches. Compact cameras are not doing too good, because you can shoot pictures with your phone. DSLR and mirrorless though, are doing swell, with even better projections. In the same way, I think low end watches (mechanical+smart) will suffer a big hit, but high end watches ($1k+ will not see any difference at all). It's just different market segments. You don't see Martinelli worried about Ikea opening a factory every eayr. They just sell to different people. I've tried to make that point to people who claim that Apple has ever shrinking market share in the smartphone market. It might seem so to a person who has no idea about marketing, but in reality, Apple's share in the high end segment of the market is increasing.

mhaymo 12y ago
The difference between cameras and watches is you can carry a smartphone and a DSLR. Unless you're going to start wearing two watches, you'll be giving up all the utility of a smartwatch for your wealth-indicator, which yes many people will be happy to do now, but that market can only shrink as the high-end smartwatch market grows.
- jamespo 12y ago
  Although you have almost all of that functionality on your smartphone already.
- lsc 12y ago
  I know several people that own $10K+ watches, and a larger group who own $1K+ watches None of them own only one super expensive watch... and a lot of them carry like three or four in a bag for different situations.
cityhall 12y ago
On the other hand, Leica and Hasselblad switched to digital along with everyone else. There's still a high end but it has to compete on technology, not just exclusivity. Watch purists may go the way of vinyl purists, slowly dying out as the competing technology offers more and more convenience.