4 ms·

When asked about paper vs e- books, lots of people will comment about preferring the former because of the "smell" etc. But...nobody walks into a bookstore and

When asked about paper vs e- books, lots of people will comment about preferring the former because of the "smell" etc. But...nobody walks into a bookstore and buys one because it smells nice. The linked article says similar about watches: lots of obsession about preserving the elegant mechanical essence...which has practically nothing to do with the reason a watch is bought, that being to tell time. Sure, given a desire to buy a book, or a watch, one may opt for the embossed leather-bound edition printed with a movable-type press, or the 300-component hand-carved self-winding watch, but the driving point is to read The Hobbit, or tell when to leave work. We went thru this with music and photography. Tape & vinyl gave way to CDs which gave way to MP3 & AAC & FLAC. Film gave way to terabyte hard drives & multi-gigabyte flash cards. Sure, there's an occasional nostalgic resurgence of vinyl and film, but those technologies are largely relegated to artisan use. I was at Kodak when the photo industry pivoted; it's little more than a brand and a mostly-sold patent portfolio now. There's the old line that when a news headline asks a yes/no question, the answer is invariably "no". So...no, the Swiss watchmaker won't, on the whole, survive the digital age. The Movado on my desk and the Apple on my wrist cost about the same, but one's on my desk and the other is used every few minutes for a variety of purposes (from accurate-to-50ms-and-50m time to up-next calendar to notifications to backup telephone to exercise monitor to mapping to ...). Yeah, the mechanical version (even a mere quartz movement, akin to an old literal-pulp novel) appeals more to the base senses, but given which will actually get near-constant use, well, ask Kodak how their film business is holding up.

Silfen 11y ago
> ...which has practically nothing to do with the reason a watch is bought, that being to tell time. It seems to me that most watches already fall into the "artisan use" category that you mention. Phones already tell time. There are accurate clocks everywhere. Wearing a watch seems to be much more about style, design, and status signaling than anything else.
kstenerud 11y ago
There are two purposes to a timepiece: 1. To tell the time. 2. To make a fashion statement. Digital watches (and now smart watches) add to that various functions, but, for most people, the fashion statement aspect of a watch trumps the functionality. Analog watches will survive because they are, first and foremost, jewelry.
- vdnkh 11y ago
  >2. To make a fasion statement. Bingo. I enjoy the satisfaction of having an extremely complicated mechanical device winding away on my wrist, but it's ultimately a piece of jewelry. This is evident in the industry itself. Most watches inherit the same class of movements; in-house is becoming rarer. But each looks different, and appeals to a different person. As long as fashion is alive, mechanical watches will continue to be bought.
  - Zancarius 11y ago
    > This is evident in the industry itself. Most watches inherit the same class of movements; in-house is becoming rarer. This is definitely true, particularly among some of the ultra-thin quartz movements. A good chunk of the ones I've seen (and owned?) have used Japanese quartz movements. What differs is the packaging.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  Your post is predicted on two assumptions: - That a smart watch cannot be a fashion statement. - That a smart watch isn't also jewlery. If it turns out that a smart watch CAN make a fashion statement and IS jewelry then traditional watches just offer less functionality overall without offering any unique advantages.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    OF course they do. People still have sundials in their gardens. Its about design. Not all about utilitarianism.
  - kstenerud 11y ago
    Nope. I never said that a smart watch (or a digital watch for that matter) cannot make a fashion statement, or is not jewelry. My point is that analog watches are not going away because the decision to buy a particular watch is not a purely functional one.
  - benihana 11y ago
    No it isn't. That post is refuting an incorrect assumption of the parent post - that people only buy watches to tell time.
anthony_d 11y ago
I think you misunderstand why mechanical watches are bought. It's not to tell time. Phones tell time. That clock on the wall 10 feet from you tells time. The computer you sit/stand at can tell you when to leave work. For the most part watches are style + status symbol; personally I don't think smart watches are a threat on either front. FWIW, I have a mid-range Omega that is partially style, partially status and partially a beautiful piece of engineering. I _like_ it and I don't like the Apple watch.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > For the most part watches are style + status symbol; personally I don't think smart watches are a threat on either front. Like top hats? One day everyone had one and good ones were a status symbol, the next they're all be relegated to special occasions (and even then rare). People make these claims a lot but they have it backwards. Good watches were a status symbol because at one point "everyone" had a watch and you could stand out from the crowd by having a good one. Now nobody has one and they're now a differentiator rather than a status symbol (which means they appeal to a different demographic). I personally think if watches survive as a format at all (smart watches aren't assured to stay around, by the way), traditional watches will diminish as people buy high end smart watches for status AND functionality, rather than simply buying a traditional watch for status alone (and appearing a bit hipsterish for doing so).
  - anthony_d 11y ago
    I often lament that people don't wear hats enough anymore, so you may be on to something. On the other hand 2-3 years ago watches were gone as far as I could see. I remember a college student commenting that only old people wore them and that clearly they were pointless now that everyone had a phone. Purely anecdotally that trend seems to have reversed and I'm seeing more and more watches. I still haven't seen an Apple watch in the wild and I've only seen 2 android watches.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - 11y ago
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Except that I don't think Swiss (or other artisan) watches are bought for purely utilitarian purposes. They're bought for aesthetics, as status symbols and for the old time/luxurious brand they convey. Smart watches are another category entirely: they're wearable computers. The timekeeping aspect is backtracked, and they might well dominate on basis of their utility. But Swiss and other artisanal watches will persevere as at least a niche for their elaborate mechanical aspects that give them value beyond the prime use of timekeeping. As for paper, I thought the dominant argument in favor of ebooks is that it's easier on the eyes. Storage and recording mechanisms are a whole other ballpark. They're fetishized for nostalgic reasons, but such things are replaceable by their definition.
ctdonath 11y ago
The inevitable "it's a status/fashion/art statement" response is about the same as the "smell" of books or "warmth" of vinyl in another way I overlooked. Sometimes a person WANTS to spend a LOT of money on something otherwise mundane & expensive. You want _The_Hobbit_, do you pay $0.50 for a used & worn paperback, or first-edition copy for $200,000 (see recent news)? same content. You want _Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_, do you order the $0.11+shipping used CD from Amazon and play it on your computer's disc drive, or pay $200 for an original vinyl copy and listen to it on a $100,000 record player? same content. Until recently, watches really did nothing other than tell time, all with about the same accuracy. A $5 watch was not meaningfully less useful than a $500,000 Swiss marvel. Yes, many of the premium watch makers will continue, because some people WANT to spend a mind-boggling amount on premium craftsmanship applied to mundane ends. But MOST people don't.
PopsiclePete 11y ago
A $15 Casio can tell time just as accurately as a $5000 Omega. Just like a $14,000 Kia will get you and your groceries back from the grocery store just as well as a $200,000 Ferrari. So will the Ferrari survive the age of cheap cars? You bet. A Swiss mechanical watch is more of a fashion statement/accessory than a device to keep track of time. You wear it with a nice suit to a business meeting. If I were to shake your hand and happened to notice you were wearing a Patek Philippe, that says something about you - your wealth, taste, status, etc. The Swiss watches will be fine. So will Ferrari and Lamborghini and Austin Martin, so will Apple, so will Jimmy Choo and his shoes.
- SeoxyS 11y ago
  In fact, a $15 Casio is much more accurate than a $7000 Omega. I say this as an owner of the latter, which must be worn every second day to not run out of power (after which its time must be reset), and whose accuracy is measured in second deviations per day, not per year. That said, I still much prefer the Omega because it's beautiful, it's timeless, it's an incredibly complex and precise mechanical movement built by hand by skilled Swiss craftsmen, and it'll run forever without electricity.
  - wumbernang 11y ago
    I had a cheaper $1000 Omega and got rid of it for a cheap Casio. I found that I needed the function for a bit rather than the form and it stuck. Alarm, stopwatch and backlight are killer features. New F91W is bought every time the strap falls to bits. On second one in 7 years. I'll be dead before I've spent that $1000 again.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    I have a Swiss COSC thermo-compensated quartz watch that is so accurate that I have not been able to measure any time deaviation over the time between daylight saving starting and stopping. Amazing technology.
EliRivers 11y ago
But...nobody walks into a bookstore and buys one because it smells nice. That is true, but when I buy a new book from No Starch, I expect it to smell nice. I anticipate it, and I can tell my No Starch books from the others by scent. So when I'm considering which book on a subject to buy, this anticipation of a superior sensory experience (they also use nice paper, and a nice binding, that can be felt) does affect my judgement. It's not all the points, but it's definitely a few points.

Silfen 11y ago

> ...which has practically nothing to do with the reason a watch is bought, that being to tell time. It seems to me that most watches already fall into the "artisan use" category that you mention. Phones already tell time. There are accurate clocks everywhere. Wearing a watch seems to be much more about style, design, and status signaling than anything else.

kstenerud 11y ago

There are two purposes to a timepiece: 1. To tell the time. 2. To make a fashion statement. Digital watches (and now smart watches) add to that various functions, but, for most people, the fashion statement aspect of a watch trumps the functionality. Analog watches will survive because they are, first and foremost, jewelry.

vdnkh 11y ago
>2. To make a fasion statement. Bingo. I enjoy the satisfaction of having an extremely complicated mechanical device winding away on my wrist, but it's ultimately a piece of jewelry. This is evident in the industry itself. Most watches inherit the same class of movements; in-house is becoming rarer. But each looks different, and appeals to a different person. As long as fashion is alive, mechanical watches will continue to be bought.
- Zancarius 11y ago
  > This is evident in the industry itself. Most watches inherit the same class of movements; in-house is becoming rarer. This is definitely true, particularly among some of the ultra-thin quartz movements. A good chunk of the ones I've seen (and owned?) have used Japanese quartz movements. What differs is the packaging.
Someone1234 11y ago
Your post is predicted on two assumptions: - That a smart watch cannot be a fashion statement. - That a smart watch isn't also jewlery. If it turns out that a smart watch CAN make a fashion statement and IS jewelry then traditional watches just offer less functionality overall without offering any unique advantages.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  OF course they do. People still have sundials in their gardens. Its about design. Not all about utilitarianism.
- kstenerud 11y ago
  Nope. I never said that a smart watch (or a digital watch for that matter) cannot make a fashion statement, or is not jewelry. My point is that analog watches are not going away because the decision to buy a particular watch is not a purely functional one.
- benihana 11y ago
  No it isn't. That post is refuting an incorrect assumption of the parent post - that people only buy watches to tell time.

anthony_d 11y ago

I think you misunderstand why mechanical watches are bought. It's not to tell time. Phones tell time. That clock on the wall 10 feet from you tells time. The computer you sit/stand at can tell you when to leave work. For the most part watches are style + status symbol; personally I don't think smart watches are a threat on either front. FWIW, I have a mid-range Omega that is partially style, partially status and partially a beautiful piece of engineering. I _like_ it and I don't like the Apple watch.

Someone1234 11y ago
> For the most part watches are style + status symbol; personally I don't think smart watches are a threat on either front. Like top hats? One day everyone had one and good ones were a status symbol, the next they're all be relegated to special occasions (and even then rare). People make these claims a lot but they have it backwards. Good watches were a status symbol because at one point "everyone" had a watch and you could stand out from the crowd by having a good one. Now nobody has one and they're now a differentiator rather than a status symbol (which means they appeal to a different demographic). I personally think if watches survive as a format at all (smart watches aren't assured to stay around, by the way), traditional watches will diminish as people buy high end smart watches for status AND functionality, rather than simply buying a traditional watch for status alone (and appearing a bit hipsterish for doing so).
- anthony_d 11y ago
  I often lament that people don't wear hats enough anymore, so you may be on to something. On the other hand 2-3 years ago watches were gone as far as I could see. I remember a college student commenting that only old people wore them and that clearly they were pointless now that everyone had a phone. Purely anecdotally that trend seems to have reversed and I'm seeing more and more watches. I still haven't seen an Apple watch in the wild and I've only seen 2 android watches.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- 11y ago

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Except that I don't think Swiss (or other artisan) watches are bought for purely utilitarian purposes. They're bought for aesthetics, as status symbols and for the old time/luxurious brand they convey. Smart watches are another category entirely: they're wearable computers. The timekeeping aspect is backtracked, and they might well dominate on basis of their utility. But Swiss and other artisanal watches will persevere as at least a niche for their elaborate mechanical aspects that give them value beyond the prime use of timekeeping. As for paper, I thought the dominant argument in favor of ebooks is that it's easier on the eyes. Storage and recording mechanisms are a whole other ballpark. They're fetishized for nostalgic reasons, but such things are replaceable by their definition.

ctdonath 11y ago

The inevitable "it's a status/fashion/art statement" response is about the same as the "smell" of books or "warmth" of vinyl in another way I overlooked. Sometimes a person WANTS to spend a LOT of money on something otherwise mundane & expensive. You want _The_Hobbit_, do you pay $0.50 for a used & worn paperback, or first-edition copy for $200,000 (see recent news)? same content. You want _Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_, do you order the $0.11+shipping used CD from Amazon and play it on your computer's disc drive, or pay $200 for an original vinyl copy and listen to it on a $100,000 record player? same content. Until recently, watches really did nothing other than tell time, all with about the same accuracy. A $5 watch was not meaningfully less useful than a $500,000 Swiss marvel. Yes, many of the premium watch makers will continue, because some people WANT to spend a mind-boggling amount on premium craftsmanship applied to mundane ends. But MOST people don't.

PopsiclePete 11y ago

A $15 Casio can tell time just as accurately as a $5000 Omega. Just like a $14,000 Kia will get you and your groceries back from the grocery store just as well as a $200,000 Ferrari. So will the Ferrari survive the age of cheap cars? You bet. A Swiss mechanical watch is more of a fashion statement/accessory than a device to keep track of time. You wear it with a nice suit to a business meeting. If I were to shake your hand and happened to notice you were wearing a Patek Philippe, that says something about you - your wealth, taste, status, etc. The Swiss watches will be fine. So will Ferrari and Lamborghini and Austin Martin, so will Apple, so will Jimmy Choo and his shoes.

SeoxyS 11y ago
In fact, a $15 Casio is much more accurate than a $7000 Omega. I say this as an owner of the latter, which must be worn every second day to not run out of power (after which its time must be reset), and whose accuracy is measured in second deviations per day, not per year. That said, I still much prefer the Omega because it's beautiful, it's timeless, it's an incredibly complex and precise mechanical movement built by hand by skilled Swiss craftsmen, and it'll run forever without electricity.
- wumbernang 11y ago
  I had a cheaper $1000 Omega and got rid of it for a cheap Casio. I found that I needed the function for a bit rather than the form and it stuck. Alarm, stopwatch and backlight are killer features. New F91W is bought every time the strap falls to bits. On second one in 7 years. I'll be dead before I've spent that $1000 again.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I have a Swiss COSC thermo-compensated quartz watch that is so accurate that I have not been able to measure any time deaviation over the time between daylight saving starting and stopping. Amazing technology.

EliRivers 11y ago

But...nobody walks into a bookstore and buys one because it smells nice. That is true, but when I buy a new book from No Starch, I expect it to smell nice. I anticipate it, and I can tell my No Starch books from the others by scent. So when I'm considering which book on a subject to buy, this anticipation of a superior sensory experience (they also use nice paper, and a nice binding, that can be felt) does affect my judgement. It's not all the points, but it's definitely a few points.