Tell me who
Who actually wears a watch these days?
Apple CEO Tim Cook has been relentlessly repeating to world+dog that fanbois should expect new kit in entirely new product categories this year, and now one analyst has come out with a prediction of what at least one of those items could bring to Apple's top line in the first year of its existence: a cool $17.5bn. Morgan …
Who actually wears a watch these days?
>Who actually wears a watch these days?
Anyone who wants to know the time without fumbling in a pocket or bag. Watches are waterproof, easy to carry, and have a battery life measured in years - as opposed to the mere hours that phones last.
In many workplaces it is not a good idea to check the time on your phone - some middle manager might assume you're faffing around on FaceBook or whatever - so a watch avoids the misunderstanding.
Beyond the conventional use of telling the time, watches are in contact with the skin; fitness aids aren't uncommon today. With our ageing population in the developed world, there is scope for wrist-worn medical devices. If having a week's log of heart-rate data helps doctors prevent heart attacks, insurance companies might subsidise these devices.
It's a Penal Tracking Device - you are supposed to wear it around your ankle.
You do realise that women are more impressed with the kind of watch you wear than the size of your smart phone don't you.
It's not a watch it's a slave band.
You would wear it if it's a light weight hologram projecting phaser shooting transportation device wouldn't you?
Apple, are you listening?
Look around - probably about 80-90% of people. Probably about the same number as have a mobile phone.
"It's a Penal Tracking Device - you are supposed to wear it aroud your ankle."
For a second there i read penile tracking device and had a scary moment wondering where we supposed to wear it.
Usually women are attracted by the size of your smarts.
'Re: Tell me who
Look around - probably about 80-90% of people. Probably about the same number as have a mobile phone.'
Work in a watch factory, do you?
"For a second there i read penile tracking device and had a scary moment wondering where we supposed to wear it."
Didn't know where to wear?
That's probably a senile rather than a penile moment, then. Don't be too scared, it comes to most of us if we live long enough.
Is there some troll-bot that automatically starts this thread in the forum for every story that mentions the iWatch? Give it a rest.
So let me get this straight. She can somehow predict how many units Apple will sell of a product that, not only do we not know what it is, but we don't even know which sector it's in. Bullshit.
People will buy it!
Bullshit : Analyst prediction
you say potato, i say tomato....
> you say potato, i say tomato....
So, you're saying analyst predictions aren't bullshit?
no no, quite the opposite.
tomAYto/potAYto : tomARto/potARto : analystPREdictions/bullsHIt
i was agreeing, they're all just different ways of pronouncing nasty vegetables that aren't as tasty as a healthy hamburger
The last thing I want is a damn watch. I have been given plenty of flash and expensive watches in my life and I havn't worn one of them. It's getting rare to see a guy wearing a watch who's not some kind of suit trying to look important.
I can't possibly see a way to milk a dying market for $1Bil, let alone $12Bil let alone $17.5Bil!
*Go home Tim Cook, You're drunk!
Unless my maths are seriously screwed... that's about 6 million+ iWatches. Yep.. there's about 6 million suits just pretentious enough to buy one. They won't have a clue, but I can hear it now: "we're suits... we need the latest tech. You're IT. Support it!".
Really, you guys and you no one wears watches any more and other pointless blather ... it is patently untrue.
Just because you belong to the set of people who choose not to wear one, does not mean that a majority or even a large minority don't wear one.
As for "flash and expensive", I doubt you would even recognise an expensive watch, and that would put you firmly in the majority group!
Icon: Mine's the one with a a reference 5712G-001 up the sleeve.
"It's getting rare to see a guy wearing a watch ..."
Maybe so, but it is quite common to see women wearing watches, and often worn as a co-ordinated accessory. So maybe Apple have in fact done a bit of homework on this one.
>It's getting rare to see a guy wearing a watch who's not some kind of suit trying to look important.
Your statement suggests you work in an office environment. Many people do not.
Offices tend to feature clocks on walls and in the corner of every computer screen. Many other work places do not.
>As for "flash and expensive", I doubt you would even recognise an expensive watch, and that would put you firmly in the majority group!
It's pretty easy: If it is being worn by a Russian politician, it is likely to be a very expensive watch.
'As for "flash and expensive", I doubt you would even recognise an expensive watch, and that would put you firmly in the majority group!'
I expect you're right. Reckon I could recognise the sort of pratt who'd wear one, though. Fortunately, one of a minority. Though with good amusement value for the majority.
Flash and Expensive?
You do realise that expensive does not always mean flash?
I prefer expensive and subtle.
You on the other hand sound like you've never had a quality timepiece.
I'd actually say more people wear watches than do not...
That's some very expensive jewellery - anon because I was sad enough to look it up
The so called Iwatch unless is has little functionality will be pretty chunky, can't see many women wanting a big assed watch.
Why wait? Don't buy one today! Personally, I'm holding out for the "don't buy one, don't get one free" offer.
Dude, totally shot yourself down with that Patek Philippe reference.
NB: I love watches, but not watch snobbery (in either direction, eg won't be seen dead with one vs won't be seen dead without a £40,000 one)
My point being, those people who do wear watches, especially the "Flash and Expensive" ones, want a watch that is precision crafted, engineered by the best watchmakers the world has to offer, they are willing to spend 6 figures on a quality timepiece. They are going to look at a low 3-figure iWatch and wonder what kind of piece of shit that is.
The regular joe has a smartphone, if they have a watch its comfortable and practical, and in a woman's case, its usually dainty too. no matter what, Apple is going to be extremely hard pressed to fit a LiPo, cpu, ram, bluetooth, digitizer, piezio, lcd and charger all into the size of a practical watch.
"You on the other hand sound like you've never had a quality timepiece."
"Timepiece". Lovely word. Slides off the tongue of those marketing to those who imagine they're discerning; better than the average bear.
Meanwhile, bears shit in the woods, just like ego-masturbators. And tell the time just as accurately and conveniently in a hundred ways available to all bears at little or no cost.
"... can't see many women wanting a big assed watch."
Dunno. Know a few horse-fanciers who find asses cute. Some of them even have big arses.
'My point being, those people who do wear watches, especially the "Flash and Expensive" ones, want a watch that is precision crafted, engineered by the best watchmakers the world has to offer, they are willing to spend 6 figures on a quality timepiece.'
"... those people... want a watch that is precision crafted, engineered by the best watchmakers the world has to offer"
What a load of b*ll*x!
Those "precision crafted" watches are less accurate than £2 quartz crystal petrol-station-bought watches. They're sold to mugs who imagine that flaunting one says something about them. The truth is, it does, but not what they imagine.
I have quite a few time pieces, new and antique, cheap and not so cheap. That was the one I had on when I posted.
Either you had to look it up or you know what it is. Someone who knows what it is would likely not comment. Someone who had to look it up has probably never seen one either. The reference (pun intended) was for the benefit of the first group, and to troll the second. After all, the thread is a response to a patently moronic statement, so anything goes really.
Finally, "watch snobbery" would only work if the ones being snobbed (?) upon can actually recognise an expensive timepiece. Trust me on this, most people have no clue and don't want to know.
Sorry, I just looked it up too. Seriously? 38 grand just to tell the time?
Ah well, I guess it's worth it as long as there are other twats around willing to pay stupid money for it when your Timex comes back from repair.
Ok Mr Lewis,
a) I'm a *huge* watch and pocket-watch fancier, but from afar. I love Patek Philippe & their history, and regard it as the premier crafter of timepieces.
b) I could probably afford one.
c) I would *never* buy one. Perhaps my take on these things is all wrong, but items of loveliness as they may be, I would not even dare remove it from a vacuum chamber for a quick fondle, not to mention how pretentious I'd feel wearing one.
Make of that what you will, and label me appropriately as makes you feel best.
That's some very expensive jewellery
Plenty of folks will spend in the neighborhood of $40K on an engagement or wedding ring, and at least the watch has some practical functionality beyond the (not insignificant) rhetorical function of a ring. Or even on a wedding dress, which will only be worn once, unlike the ring.
It's not my taste, and it's not what I'd choose to spend $40K on,1 but I'd hardly class it as "very expensive". When you're in a position to buy luxury goods in this price bracket, this one is actually not a particularly great ratio of exchange-to-use value.
1I hate to spend that much even on a car, which obviously has even more utility, and generally offers more incremental functionality at higher price points than watches do. I'd rather gradually spend the $40K on books, tools, and other relatively inexpensive items that I'll get long-term enjoyment from. But that's just me.
I'm holding out for the "don't buy one, don't get one free" offer.
As a special introductory offer, if you send me no money today, I'll guarantee not to ship you three iWatches when they're released. (If I do ship you any iWatches, your entire payment of $0 will be refunded in full.)
Well, actually I bought it while my 3700/1A was in for a restoration (not the Timex). And for those who don't quite understand, I have had the 3700/1A since I bought it in 1978. I would suggest you research how much I paid for it versus how much they are traded for at the moment, then figure out what that amounts to in %/year in value. You might be surprised what you find out.
Buy well, and you can enjoy owning something rather nice and use it, then sell it 30 years later and have as much in hand as if you had never bought it and thrown the money in the bank. Buy junk, and you can throw it away when you are bored with it or it breaks, or perhaps hope for a few shillings on eBay.
It is pretty clear which option I prefer.
The same goes for cars.
And many times that for a car without a roof and only two seats to drive at weekends in summer.
Your point is?
I am reasonably confident that should I ever be short of a quid, I will be able to redeem my watch (and my car) collection(s) for considerably more than I paid for them. In the mean time, I will enjoy the pleasures of ownership.
And by the way, people with more disposable cash than you, are not twats because they spend (or invest) their cash in expensive items. Granted, there is the odd twat around, but they would be twats with or without their spending pattern.
a) Patek has a fine and well deserved reputation
b) So could many people who do not own one. Like you, they probably never will
c) Watches, cars, fine china, antiques, classic cars ... these are just things. Those interested in them, will make the effort to own and enjoy owning them.
You probably wouldn't feel any different wearing a Patek or any of the more discrete top end timepieces. Trust me, except for people with an interest, no one will notice or care. On the other hand, were you to kit yourself out with a Rolex Presidential or some other hideously ostentatious watch, well aside from deserving gaol time for poor taste, you will probably feel pretentious and the bling will attract, well people who are attracted to bling. Not really the people I would want to attract personally.
I don't have too many pocket watches. Very fine pocket watches can be had for quite small sums if you look around and buy well.
Pocket money. Try a Chopard 201 for the girls, or a Louis Moinet Meteoris for the boys.
If I had the cash I'd consider a Van Cleef/Arpels/Ven Der Klaauw Midnight Planetarium - although I'm not entirely convinced by a very expensive watch decorated in a font that looks worryingly like Monotype Corsiva.
That particular Chopard has very definitely crossed the line between "timepiece" and "jewellery".
And I "know" you just went here to get your choices and that you probably have never heard of these particular pieces. http://uk.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment/top-10-most-expensive-watches_1.html
... have to agree with you there...
Show me what it can do that the pebble doesn't already do.
I wear a watch because phones and salt water don't go together very well. Apple is going to have to come up with something waterproof to at lease 10 meters.
"Show me what it can do that the pebble doesn't already do."
Make money for Apple?
After all that is all the cult of Jobs acolytes are interested in
Not all watches are for all people. I don't need a 'diving' watch for example and would not appreciate it's weight / bulk.
Wasn`t there an App or hack to make your iPhone waterproof? (smirks)
I have some more "next big thing" ideas for Apple to add to the iWatch accessory line:
1. The iCuffLink.
2. The iSuspenders.
3. The iWingTipBrogans.
4. The iFedoraSnapBrimHat.
5. The iBuggyWhip.
6. The iRotaryTelephone.
7. The i33RPMVinylRecord.
8. The i8TrackTape.
9. The iTieTack.
10. The iBlackAndWhiteTV.
11. The iConsoleRadio.
12. The iCassetteTape.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017