Tag Heuer Partners With Google and Intel To Create Luxury Apple Watch Rival 111
An anonymous reader writes Luxury Swiss watchmaker Tag Heuer has announced it will be designing a smartwatch in partnership with U.S. tech giants Google and Intel. The watch is to rival similar devices in the consumer wearables market, specifically the much-anticipated Apple Watch. Tag is the first watchmaker to join with Google, however it is thought the deal will also welcome collaborations with other high-quality LVMH brands, such as Hublot and Zenith. The watch will be available toward the end of the year, with price structures and functionality details announced shortly before its release.
It's win-win. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google and Intel bring the tech know-how, and Tag Heuer brings the idiots willing to pay ridiculous money for a watch.
Re: (Score:3)
Tag Heuer brings the idiots willing to pay ridiculous money for a watch.
Tag Heuer customers don't pay truly ridiculous money for watches, because Tag Heuer is a piker in the luxury watch market. Google and Intel need to partner with Hublot, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Bulgari, Chopard, Franck Muller, Patek Philippe and others if they want to get into serious levels of ridiculous.
Re:It's win-win. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They sell you a dial with a single needle and tell you it's just as good as 3 needles due to some stupid algorithm that tries to simulate it?
Re: (Score:2)
"Ridiculous money" is sort of a relative. I'd argue that Tag customers pay ridiculous money relative to their income, since most Tag customers are merely sort of affluent, not "rich".
Re: (Score:2)
There are enough rich people to sustain current high-end priced watches.
A watch (or atleast anything beyond a $10 casio) is a fashion accessory.
Just like all fashion, it pays to have absurd "haute couture" products that nobody really buys, because it makes famous people want to buy the high-end products, which makes ordinary people buy the low-end products where all the profit is made.
Most top fashion brands famed for catwalk suits, dresses and clothing make most of their profit from branded handbags and be
Read between the lines though. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's *extremely* telling that Google is running after luxury brands.
Why?
Because everyone at Apple and Google know the truth. And the truth is: This is not a product anyone needs.
How do you sell something nobody actually needs? Well... Nobody knows the answer to that question better than watch manufacturers.
The immediate flight to "luxury" speaks volumes about the actual utility value of these silly gadgets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"How do you sell something nobody actually needs?"
Ok but what are people to do with their extremely disposable income? Luxury items does serve an important purpose. Remember that an internet connected computer is a luxury item to many on this planet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The computer you're posting from isn't something that anyone _needs_.
You need water, air, food, and shelter.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, when the iPhone came out, Nokia's phones could already take great pictures, send all sorts of messages, open documents, run real apps and include 3G radios.
...And look at Nokia Go... Down the Drain.
Does Tag really think that significant number of people in the luxury watch market actually use Android?
People generally will gravitate toward a peripheral product (watch) that is well-supported by the main product (phone).
And I would be willing to bet that most people that would be the demographic for a Tag Huerer watch are not running Android.
Jus' sayin'...
Re: (Score:2)
Tag people likely run a typical mix of phones.
But real expensive watch people don't use smartphones at all. Smartphones are a shitty substitute for a human personal assistant (with a smartphone).
Re: (Score:2)
...real expensive watch people don't use smartphones at all. Smartphones are a shitty substitute for a human personal assistant (with a smartphone).
You're right about that!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They've always been about design, as you'd know if you ever cracked open one of their tower computer cases it goes more than skin deep.
Design is about making choices, and one of the most important choices you have to make is which stuff to leave out. Take watches. If you have a watch with no features other than an hour, minute and second hand, that represents the pinnacle of usability for telling time with an analog watch. With every feature you add to an analog watch the task of telling time becomes ever-
Re: (Score:2)
Except Intel is lacking heavily in good embedded processors for now
FTFY
You do know what Intel makes right? And even if they don't know how to make something as good as the competition in-house, they have the pockets to buy someone that can. It just takes the motivation.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the point of Quark, their 'wearable' SoC?
Re: (Score:2)
Tag prices actually are one of the more reasonable in the quality brands. having said that I still can't understand why the fuck people are racing to create smart watches. how many times does this segment have to fail before they realize this is a case of them searching for a problem that doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:1)
how many times does this segment have to fail before they realize this is a case of them searching for a problem that doesn't exist.
Apple could put their logo on a turd, an actual turd, and sell tens of millions. The only problem would be coming up with ten million turds.
Re: (Score:1)
iPecacuanha? [webmd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because history says you're probably wrong. The first mechanical clocks filled up a room. Refinement of the design allowed them to become small enough to sit in the hallway of your house. Replacing the pendulum with a spring allowed them to shrink enough that you could pack in your bag and tak
Re: (Score:1)
Why would replacing an oscillation regulator with an energy store help?
It's lose-lose (Score:2)
People looking to spend 10 grand on a watch want a Rolex or some other quality brand that will last a lifetime and that they can pass on in their will, not some junk fad that will be obsolete in 24 months. Google and Intel will pay dearly for this mistake.
This will not be Intel's first time to fail in the watch business, but their last failure was not nearly as spectacular as this will be.
Re: It's lose-lose (Score:1)
Rolex is not a quality brand. They only sell because of it being a status symbol. In fact, their timekeeping abilities are worse than many of the middle priced watches ($200-500 range)
Re: (Score:2)
Quality and time keeping ability are not the same thing. Any and every $10 Timex will be more accurate than an officially certified swiss chronometer. Rolex, Omega, etc bring to you quality construction and style (they are jewelry items). Like my grandpa's Omega that I have still ticking away at home after 75 years, or my dad's Rolex that has been on his wrist every day for the last 40 years.
Re: (Score:2)
People looking to spend 10 grand on a watch want a Rolex or some other quality brand that will last a lifetime and that they can pass on in their will, not some junk fad that will be obsolete in 24 months
Maybe not. As others have stated the people who buy a Rolex are buying a status symbol or jewelry. It is easily recognizable and a way to set your self apart from the unwashed masses since even they recognize a Rolex. Having never owned a Rolex I can't speak to their reliability or accuracy but it looks like [fourtane.com] they are not better than my very good but when new inexpensive mechanical Benrus made US military watch (federal stock number 6645-066-4279) for accuracy, it runs 3 seconds +/-1 fast per day verified ag
Re: (Score:2)
Tag Heuer brings the idiots willing to pay ridiculous money for a watch.
For some people "ridiculous money" is just pocket money. Those are the Tag Heuer clients. Why pay for cheaper while that "ridiculous money" for a TH doesn't make any difference in a daily budget.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing ridiculous about paying lots of money for a watch if you have enough of it.
However, I was under the impression that most luxury watches are mechanical (as opposed to quartz) and not watches either, but rather chronometers. They are much less precise than any quartz watch and it very hard to make them water proof. People buy them because they are engineering marvels and will last for generations if they are overhauled regularly by a watchmaker certified for the brand. I wonder whether there
Re: (Score:2)
engineering marvels and will last for generations if they are overhauled regularly by a watchmaker certified for the brand
Yes most luxury watches are still all mechanical movements and the mechanical aspect is what makes them neat. There is a lot of engineering that goes into making one and depending on the watch there is the appreciation of the skill of craftsman that made it. That said I don't think a lot of people buying luxury watches are necessarily buying them for that but instead as a means of showing off. Think of it as the way MBAs measure their equivalent of their e-peen.
As far as service goes, just like with vehicl
Re: (Score:2)
Google and Intel bring the tech know-how, and Tag Heuer brings the idiots willing to pay ridiculous money for a watch.
Well, to be fair, although I see your point about being an idiot for wanting to pay tens of thousands for a thing that just tells the time, there is at least some justification in a sense, when what you are buying is a mechanical masterpiece made from a few, really rather simple bits, but engineering to a breathtaking standard of accuracy. You can understand why something like that would be expensive, even if you can point out that it is irrelevant for anybody in practical terms.
But a smart watch? It adds n
Re: (Score:2)
But a smart watch? It adds no actual value to its user, it is exclusively a way of telling the world that you are stupid and rich enough to not care about how you spend money; a fashion statement.
Why some people on tech boards so upset with smart watches? Is it because helps make technology available to the masses? I don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why some people on tech boards so upset with smart watches? Is it because helps make technology available to the masses? I don't get it.
I wouldn't say I'm upset, but I think it is in the nature of engineers and scientists - of which there are a fair few - to look at things from an analytical point of view: what are the merits, or weaknesses of something? To me, and to many with a background in engineering, how something looks or whether it will make you stand out as a fashion icon is either irrelevant or unwelcome, even to the extent that if I have to choose a tool, I will stay away from ones that seem to have been designed to look good, ba
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To me, and to many with a background in engineering, how something looks or whether it will make you stand out as a fashion icon is either irrelevant or unwelcome...
Which is why it is so funny to see nerds predict the failure of a fashion accessory, given that fashion is something they likely know nothing about.
"Price Structures" (Score:3, Funny)
with price structures and functionality details announced shortly before its release
Anything with "price structures" is going to be too expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Why on earth would they want to do that? The thing should cost more its a marketing piece, a regular google watch now that should priced below or competitively with Apples version.
Watch and learn, young'uns (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what desperation looks like. Paraphrasing Vic Gundotra (of Google+ "fame"): three turkeys don't make an eagle.
Re: (Score:1)
This is what desperation looks like.
http://www.comedyflavors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/5.jpg
Not a watch (Score:2, Insightful)
A watch is a mechanical timepiece you wear on your wrist. The Apple product mentioned is a small computer you wear on your wrist.
Expensive watches are mainly expensive because of the internals, not because of the case. Sure, gold/silver/etc will drive up the price - but a good mechanical watch in a stanless steel case can still cost $10,000 - because of the intricate, hand-assembled internals. Replace those internals with $10 worth of silicon circuitry and a display, and it won't be worth $10K any more, eve
Re:Not a watch (Score:5, Informative)
but a good mechanical watch in a stanless steel case can still cost $10,000 - because of the intricate, hand-assembled internals
A good mechanical watch in a stainless steel case costs a few hundred dollars or less. $10,000 watches are jewelry whose price is inflated primarily by artificial scarcity and brand management.
Re:Not a watch (Score:4, Insightful)
Try "thousands", if the movement is built in-house and has more than a couple of complications. Ah, hell; try hundreds of thousands for a custom watch movement with more than a handful of complications--mostly due to engineering costs of designing the movement, which can take years. And when you get to the extreme high end of the watch movement market, they start becoming small analog computers, such as this Patek Philippe pocket watch, [cnn.com] which has a complication which calculates the sidereal day, and was constructed in 1933. Or this Jaeger-LeCoultre, [jaeger-lecoultre.com] which consists of over 1400 individual parts and 26 separate complications.
Re: (Score:2)
David Letterman (para)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends if your watch just ticks the time or has one of several complications which are incredibly intricate and difficult to design and assemble. You won't find a good mechanical watch with chronograph, self winding mechanism, perpetual calendar, etc for a few hundred, even if you put it in a cardboard case.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not entirely true. There are watches with standard movements that are not handmade except for final assembly. These are relatively cheap, and most of the popular garbage/fake brands belong to this category. Some of them bought a name that rings a bell, but has in reality no real tradition in watch making or has been revived only for the branding.
But there are also chronographs whose movements are assembled by hand, and these are, for obvious reasons, very expensive. There are also huge differences in
Re: (Score:2)
A watch is a mechanical timepiece you wear on your wrist. The Apple product mentioned is a small computer you wear on your wrist.
And let's face it, the Apple watch is a copy of existing Samsung/LG/Pebble device (even if Apple thought it up first), and now Google is playing me too. there's Nothing says luxury like copying a copy...
Re: (Score:2)
And let's face it, the Apple watch is a copy of existing Samsung/LG/Pebble device (even if Apple thought it up first)
Ok, that's a ridiculous statement.
1. How can something (the Apple watch) be a "copy" of something if they thought-it-up first?
2. Each of the Smartwatches you mentioned has enough "uniqueness" to not be considered a simple "copy" of the other(s). That's like saying that all mechanical watches that have a "Calendar" function (complication?) are somehow "Copies" of whoever put the first "date" function on a watch.
Re: (Score:2)
And let's face it, the Apple watch is a copy of existing Samsung/LG/Pebble device (even if Apple thought it up first)
Ok, that's a ridiculous statement. 1. How can something (the Apple watch) be a "copy" of something if they thought-it-up first? Because they only though of the concept, not the implementation. If every man and his dog release a product before you then you are still derivative. 2. Each of the Smartwatches you mentioned has enough "uniqueness" to not be considered a simple "copy" of the other(s). That's like saying that all mechanical watches that have a "Calendar" function (complication?) are somehow "Copies" of whoever put the first "date" function on a watch.
Maybe in your world, but in mine smart watches just like PC's in the 90's. No amount of fancy case work changes the fact that it's just a computer that will be outdated in a couple of years like the rest. Unlike a PC however there is not the same market or demand for a smart watch, the whole idea is just a gimmick.
The differentiators for real watches is that people don't buy them for the technology. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
Re: (Score:1)
I wasn't criticising Omega. Well except for the really high prices and wanting to be like Rolex in the image department. But, they did something no other watch manufacturer has done. And that is to bring Daniels's Co-Axial Escapement to the mass market. Doing an exotic escapment can be done, look to tourbillions and other similar mechanisms. But they are not mass produced (which doesn't mean they can't be). Omega has democratized a revolution in horology. And for that they must be complimented.
Re: (Score:2)
Rolex, in fact, hand-manufactures its own movements. Some processes of the manufacturing process do use some degree of automation, and of course a number of jigs are used during the assembly process. But they are hand-built movements built internally by Rolex.
The reason why people think Rolex outsources their movements is because Rolex doesn't talk much about their movements, and because Rolex used to use Zenith watch movements in some of their watches, such as the Daytona. (Since 2000, the Daytona has used
Re: (Score:2)
Omegas, on the other hand, mostly uses mass-manufactured ETA movements rather than using movements made in-house.
I just randomly clicked on a dozen watches on Omega's "Products" page and eleven of them have Omega movements, with the twelfth not specifying (and being a quartz movement).
That doesn't mean that they're not made in an ETA factory, but as far as I can tell Omega were taking ETA or Piguet movements and enhancing them to improve accuracy - looks like that's the case with my watch.
The new watches are often Omega designed calibers, although again probably taking advantage of the ETA factories - they're both par
Re: (Score:1)
So a pocket watch isn't a watch, and neither is a digital watch?
Re: (Score:2)
No. A watch is a piece of jewellery you wear on your wrist. The only difference between a wristwatch on one hand and a pendant, a bracelet or a brooch on the other is that a watch is the only widely allowed jewellery (other than a wedding ring) for men. Of course, the intricate mechanics and technical craftmanship is an added appeal, though the actual function of telling time is just a bonus, not the main point.
And that explains why there are such a
The watch is $8k and also party digital (Score:2)
So this watch starts at $8k. Butt that's OK right, because not Apple?
Seeing as how it is also partly digital, doesn't it in theory have the same complaints others were leveling against the Apple Watch - that it would be obsolete in a few years, instead of lasting multiple generations?
To me this is watch makers going the wrong direction. Instead of watch makers marching over to Apple Hill and fighting on the turf of Watch Computer, it seems like watch makers should make ever more amazing mechanical gadgets
Re: (Score:2)
it seems like watch makers should make ever more amazing mechanical gadgets that are totally distinct from the Apple Watch.
While I would agree, this isn't about making an amazing device it is about making an amazingly expensive device. I am half tempted to see if I can get a one off hand made mechanical watch of amazing accuracy. Then again this would be a one off watch made to be extremely accurate, with an extremely long lifetime so the cost would probably end up being greater than most high end watches which I couldn't afford anyway. Maybe some day I will win the lottery and then I can have really nice things.
Re: (Score:2)
Try http://www.onlywatch.com/ [onlywatch.com]
Some of them go as low as $10k :)
The nicest ones are rather more than that
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of seeing about getting a custom gear train made from some lighter weight materials like titanium instead of brass and stainless steel. Also in addition to the standard jewel bearings have the moving parts coated with exotic surface treatments like DLC [wikipedia.org] to further decrease the friction in the gear train as well as decreasing the wear. I
Re: (Score:2)
The tourbillon alone is going to break your budget.
Be cautious about the materials for the movement too - several of them are chosen for their behaviour under tension, how they respond to temperature change, etc - titanium is light but people invent new materials just to marginally increase accuracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it seems like watch makers should make ever more amazing mechanical gadgets that are totally distinct from the Apple Watch.
How about a digital mechanical watch:
http://www.luxurybazaar.com/it... [luxurybazaar.com]
Or a watch using air turbines for regulation, a retrograde scale and telescopic hands to keep a fixed distance from it (and no, I don't know what I just talked about):
http://www.coolest-gadgets.com... [coolest-gadgets.com]
Engineering excellence:
http://www.harrywinston.com/st... [harrywinston.com]
Or a simple looking mechanical watch that manages to be a perpetual calendar, including daylight savings, covering every timezone out there - including India, at a half-hour offset, and
Fickle (Score:3)
Personally, I like Tag Heur watches. But I would not buy a Tag smart watch. The reason is that in spending a decent sum of money on a watch you are hoping to get a time piece that will last. Tags just about fall into that category, certainly going by resale prices. Why would you spend money on a watch whose insides will become defunct in a few years? It makes zero sense. I would much rather buy a cheap watch that I am comfortable throwing out in a few years, if at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, this will go as well as a lead balloon. (Score:3, Insightful)
I own a Rolex DateJust in Gold and Stainless Steel, [rolex.com] and someday I'd like to own a Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Ultra Thin Moon 39 in Stainless Steel, [jaeger-lecoultre.com] as well as a Breitling Navitimer 01. [breitling.com] For my father's 70th birthday we bought him a Navitimer 01, which he just loves. (My father and I are both private pilots.)
Here's the thing about luxury watches: for women, you can wear necklaces, wrist bands, rings and earrings. But for men, the only pieces of jewelry that a man can wear (and get away with it) is cufflinks, a tie clip and a luxury watch. And if you're not wearing a shirt with french cuffs, or wearing a tie, then all that is left is the watch.
So basically a luxury watch is jewelry. Functional jewelry, but jewelry all the same. And like all jewelry, if its taken care of you can inherit it from your grandparents (as my wife inherited some pieces), you can receive it when you are young and still wear it when you're old, and you can pass it down to your grandchildren.
When you start looking at luxury watches, you find there are two types: those which use an in-house built movement [wikipedia.org] built by craftsmen who sweat the details and who create all sorts of intricate complications [wikipedia.org] which do interesting things (like keep accurate time, provide a stopwatch function, show the phase of the moon, the day of the month, the month of the year), and those who buy an off-the-shelf movement and wrap it in gaudy jewelry.
From what I've read (I'm not a collector but I'd like to be one someday if I ever really strike it extremely rich, because mechanical wrist watches fascinate me no end), watches from watchmakers who build their own movements are highly respected. Watches from watchmakers who buy their movements from third parties, however, are not very well respected. And the worst are those who use quartz movements: essentially an electric powered watch movement regulated by a small oscillator crystal. Like about 1/3rd of Tag Heuer's product line, many running up into the 10's of thousands, which horticulturally have more in common with a cheap Casio than with an A. Lang & Sohne.
This is why I think luxury smart watches will be an unmitigated disaster. Sure, some people will buy them--because some people have more money than God, and to be able to show off a $10,000 smart watch that you're just going to toss away in a couple of years when the electronics are out of date would be the height of "one upping the Joneses." But I cannot see them being any more interesting to someone fascinated by mechanical watches than a quartz Tag Heuer--it's the sort of watch someone with no sense of connection to the past or any sense of connection to the tradition of hand-crafted watches would shove in your face to exclaim how much better they are than you.
You know: crass assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
But for men, the only pieces of jewelry that a man can wear (and get away with it) is cufflinks, a tie clip and a luxury watch. And if you're not wearing a shirt with french cuffs, or wearing a tie, then all that is left is the watch.
Almost, but I suppose nobody will buy a smart cock-ring.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm an arrogant asshole, not a crass one.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you were as arrogant as you think you are you wouldn't have condescended to reply!
So you're saying that my reply saying I'm arrogant cannot possibly be arrogant because I replied?
Ummmm...
Re: (Score:1)
Intel??? (Score:2)
Instant loser right out of the gate. Intel cannot touch ARM for power efficiency. They have to pay US$ billions to get anybody to use their processors in tablets; almost nobody uses them in phones; using them in a watch is insanity.
Oh, wait, I forgot: TAG tends to make watches that are fucking HUGE. Never mind, TAG + Intel in a watch is actually a perfect match ;-)
Is it just me or... (Score:1)
Did you mean: (Score:2)
Tougher Competition (Score:1)
My light weight wrist-watch with the 7 yr battery (Score:2)
I bought a Seiko, because it was thin, light-weight, and had an approximate 7 year battery life. After 7 years, I bought a new battery, installed for $10.00
So, I have to change the date 6 times a year, and adjust for leapyear twice a year. Big-deal. But my watch can be immersed in water, and still keep on functioning. Newer electronic watches from the consumer market now are perpetual. Date, self adjusts, and the solar panel in the watch keeps the internal battery charged. Why would I need more. Do I