Tweet
I came across this post on Facebook, which titled "Why Apple's iWatch will kill off Rolex" (the link is here: http://www.thestreet.com/story/12669...off-rolex.html)
This article is just so wrong on so many levels. The author perhaps has no idea what in the world he was blabbering about. And upon reading it, I felt that I am obliged to put down everything that I am doing to write a rant on this. Pardon me if it is too lengthy, but I have a lot of steam to let off right now.
First and foremost, the article's title suggested why iWatch would deem Rolex redundant in the future. And guess what? The article did not mention why iWatch is capable of doing that, but rather, it just talked about how Apple hired several personnel with wonderful credentials into the company. Nothing about the capabilities of the iWatch at all. In other words, this article had already deviated from its original intent- which is to convince us (or rather, just merely talking about) how iWatch would know Rolex off their own perch.
Next, the author contradicts himself in terms of his perspective towards Rolex watches, or the world of horology as a whole. I have a strong believe that this author is merely writing this because he was tasked to do it, and this is apparent. I quote the author: "Apple plans to enter and dominate the fashion watch industry. This is a market currently dominated by Rolex." And guess what, he contradicted himself in the next paragraph! I quote again: "While there are several competing brands in that high-end market, Rolex is by far the standard. " Oh wow, does the author even knows how to differentiate between a "fashion watch" and a "high-end watch"? This alone proves that the author has no idea what in the world he is writing about; a fashion watch is something that is made for the purpose of fashion (something which one can get from Armani, Kenneth Cole or Tommy Hilfiger), while a high-end watch is a watch that is made for the purpose of horological appreciation (e.g. Rolex, Patek Philippe, Philippe Dufour or IWC). The difference between this two is obvious: one makes watches to compliment their fashion products, while the other makes watches because that is their niche product. There is a great difference in that.
Third, I feel that the author has literally no regard for well-made and affordable watches, like Seiko. Seiko is a well-respected brand in the world of horology; I have friends and acquaintances who owns great watches, but they still have Seiko timepieces in their collection. Seiko watches are great timepieces that are value-for-money, and a look at their offerings would be a testament to my opinion. From the affordable Seiko 5 range to the Seiko Credors and Grand Seikos, the quality of their product is amazing, relative to their price range. They give the Swiss watchmakers a run for their money, as they are priced relatively lower and yet they do not compromise on the quality of their products. It is popular amongst new and seasoned collectors, which henceforth deems the author's opinion as pure and utter rubbish.
Lastly, these two products (the iWatch, and the mechanical watch industry as a whole) are not even qualified to be on the basis for comparison for a very simple reason: they are different products which are catered for different groups of consumers. I assume the iWatch is leaning more towards a gadget, rather than a horological device itself. Therefore, a better comparison would be to compare this product to Samsung's Gear 2 or something else that is SIMILAR. A person who may purchase the iWatch is someone that has a penchant for electronic/ technological products, whereas the customers who are interested in purchasing a mechanical watch (NOT a smartwatch) is someone who either appreciates horology or sees good watches as a show of status symbol. Which reiterates my point once again- the are no basis for comparison for this two products at all.
So I put it to you,your honor, that this article has no case at all. An absolute harrowing piece of work that deserves a place in the rubbish bin itself (or rather, in the recycle bin in today's context).
This article is just so wrong on so many levels. The author perhaps has no idea what in the world he was blabbering about. And upon reading it, I felt that I am obliged to put down everything that I am doing to write a rant on this. Pardon me if it is too lengthy, but I have a lot of steam to let off right now.
First and foremost, the article's title suggested why iWatch would deem Rolex redundant in the future. And guess what? The article did not mention why iWatch is capable of doing that, but rather, it just talked about how Apple hired several personnel with wonderful credentials into the company. Nothing about the capabilities of the iWatch at all. In other words, this article had already deviated from its original intent- which is to convince us (or rather, just merely talking about) how iWatch would know Rolex off their own perch.
Next, the author contradicts himself in terms of his perspective towards Rolex watches, or the world of horology as a whole. I have a strong believe that this author is merely writing this because he was tasked to do it, and this is apparent. I quote the author: "Apple plans to enter and dominate the fashion watch industry. This is a market currently dominated by Rolex." And guess what, he contradicted himself in the next paragraph! I quote again: "While there are several competing brands in that high-end market, Rolex is by far the standard. " Oh wow, does the author even knows how to differentiate between a "fashion watch" and a "high-end watch"? This alone proves that the author has no idea what in the world he is writing about; a fashion watch is something that is made for the purpose of fashion (something which one can get from Armani, Kenneth Cole or Tommy Hilfiger), while a high-end watch is a watch that is made for the purpose of horological appreciation (e.g. Rolex, Patek Philippe, Philippe Dufour or IWC). The difference between this two is obvious: one makes watches to compliment their fashion products, while the other makes watches because that is their niche product. There is a great difference in that.
Third, I feel that the author has literally no regard for well-made and affordable watches, like Seiko. Seiko is a well-respected brand in the world of horology; I have friends and acquaintances who owns great watches, but they still have Seiko timepieces in their collection. Seiko watches are great timepieces that are value-for-money, and a look at their offerings would be a testament to my opinion. From the affordable Seiko 5 range to the Seiko Credors and Grand Seikos, the quality of their product is amazing, relative to their price range. They give the Swiss watchmakers a run for their money, as they are priced relatively lower and yet they do not compromise on the quality of their products. It is popular amongst new and seasoned collectors, which henceforth deems the author's opinion as pure and utter rubbish.
Lastly, these two products (the iWatch, and the mechanical watch industry as a whole) are not even qualified to be on the basis for comparison for a very simple reason: they are different products which are catered for different groups of consumers. I assume the iWatch is leaning more towards a gadget, rather than a horological device itself. Therefore, a better comparison would be to compare this product to Samsung's Gear 2 or something else that is SIMILAR. A person who may purchase the iWatch is someone that has a penchant for electronic/ technological products, whereas the customers who are interested in purchasing a mechanical watch (NOT a smartwatch) is someone who either appreciates horology or sees good watches as a show of status symbol. Which reiterates my point once again- the are no basis for comparison for this two products at all.
So I put it to you,your honor, that this article has no case at all. An absolute harrowing piece of work that deserves a place in the rubbish bin itself (or rather, in the recycle bin in today's context).
Comment