Rolex is still #1

[shnxx]

[GradyPhilpott]

Where Rolex stands relative to an Apple whatever is wholly irrelevant to me personally.

I suppose that those at Apple feel differently.

[badass09]

there's no doubt in that.. but apple watch seems to be catching up to rolex..

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[shnxx]

Originally Posted by badass09

there's no doubt in that.. but apple watch seems to be catching up to rolex..

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

It's likely that the Apple Watch and Smart watches sales will eventually eclipse that of Rolex's in the future.
But I think this watch form factor will not be a lasting form in personal wearables, thus Rolex will surely regain its position, even if it lost temporarily.

[watchwatcher]

For the second time today...I'm about Apple'd out.

[GradyPhilpott]

I'd like to know where Apple stands against Timex. I'm pretty sure that Timex sells more watches than anyone.

The Swiss watch industry is very wary of the smartwatch phenomenon, such that many manufactures are releasing their own, but that does not include Rolex.

Rolex has survived the advent of gadgetry before and managed to do quite well.

I think Apple is using these figures, which are dubious at best, to their own advantage to gain reputation by association.

It should be noted that Apple dropped their stupid 18k gold model this year.

[BomB#Frog]

I guess if you consider selling the most watches as "winning" and not based on any other horological factors.

[seand442]

The Apple Watch is a nice gadget. A Rolex is a nice watch. Two different categories.

[badass09]

Originally Posted by shnxx

i think this chart is not based on sales figures but more towards popularity..

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[T. Ferguson]

Just an Apple marketing event designed to place themselves in the same conversation with Rolex as a premier watch company. It's a joke.

[Boopie]

I'm not worried. In fact, many of the young men I see wearing an Apple Watch might not wear any watch at all. It will get them used to checking their wrist (and not their phone) for the time, as well as the feeling of wearing a watch on the wrist (some tell me they don't like it). Taste changes and evolves as we mature, and this may make some consumers open to other timepieces.

I have some older friends who own Rolexes but wear the Apple Watch because it's new technology, or they are into fitness monitoring. People don't feek shy about asking Apple Watch owners about their watch, but very few people will ask about Rolex on the wrist. The Rolex will still get "wrist time" for special occasions and, of course, will last longer.

A mechanical/automatic watch movement is already old technology, and I think most people today wear Quartz watches their entire lives. They are inexpensive and easily replaceable, so they are used more as a fashion item. Tommy Bahama even makes some good-looking timepieces. So, I don't foresee people ditching their Rolex altogether for an Apple Watch because it's new technology....maybe more wrist time, or in rotation, but not a replacement altogether.

[Gnboy]

More Pateks sold per year than Casio? Is that possible?

[texex91]

On a slide yes.

This is about the 10th post about this apple and rolex preso....zzzzz.

[Chewbacca]

you can't just have one...

[CashGap]

Revenue.

[BNA/LION]

Apple Watch - Not Interested!

[tom2517]

This has already debated over, it's revenue, not units nor popularity.

It's good to see Apple doing well, should be good news for mechanical watch lovers. With the Chinese now buying less watches and smart watch's pressure on the industry, now Swiss can't just raise prices because they feel like it, regardless of what price segment they are in.

[Canook]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

Just an Apple marketing event designed to place themselves in the same conversation with Rolex as a premier watch company. It's a joke.

this! its all a name grab by apple to increase their standing in the watch community.
If they think they can be seen up there with Rolex but not saying they are better then they think it makes them look good.

Apple watches prob cost $20 to make and prob have a actual life expectancy of 5 years before it is ready to be thrown in the bin......... Rolex doesnt fall into that category nor mindset when they build their watches.

[Mick P]

Chaps

With the greatest of respect, comparing the sales figures of Rolex v Apple is about as relevant as comparing sales of Rolex v Ford Motors.

Rolex and Apple are two different products with totally different customer bases.

Comparing the two is pointless.

Regards

Mick

PS You cannot blame Apple for listing the comparison because it is a nice bit of point scoring to an audience with the attention span of a goldfish.

[tom2517]

Originally Posted by Mick P

Chaps

With the greatest of respect, comparing the sales figures of Rolex v Apple is about as relevant as comparing sales of Rolex v Ford Motors.

Rolex and Apple are two different products with totally different customer bases.

Comparing the two is pointless.

Regards

Mick

PS You cannot blame Apple for listing the comparison because it is a nice bit of point scoring to an audience with the attention span of a goldfish.

Sorry but I have to disagree. You can't wear a F150 pickup on your wrist. Regardless what you think of Apple Watch or smart watches in general, it competes for the same real estate on your wrist.

You could make an argument on why Casio/Fossil/Tissot are on the same list as Patek, total different customer base as well.

The list is just a revenue comparison, Apple sold enough Apple watches to be second in revenue, nothing wrong with it. In another thread someone called this list bogus, that there's no way Longines sold more than Tag, but in fact Longines (thanks to the China market) sales is now higher than Tag.

I was surprised at Fossil being bigger than Omega though. I looked at Fossil's annual report, they did $3.2 billion in 2015.

[OmegaJJH]

Originally Posted by Mick P

it is a nice bit of point scoring to an audience with the attention span of a goldfish.

Mick - Stephen Fry regularly attends

[Mick P]

Originally Posted by tom2517

Sorry but I have to disagree. You can't wear a F150 pickup on your wrist. Regardless what you think of Apple Watch or smart watches in general, it competes for the same real estate on your wrist.

You could make an argument on why Casio/Fossil/Tissot are on the same list as Patek, total different customer base as well.

The list is just a revenue comparison, Apple sold enough Apple watches to be second in revenue, nothing wrong with it. In another thread someone called this list bogus, that there's no way Longines sold more than Tag, but in fact Longines (thanks to the China market) sales is now higher than Tag.

I was surprised at Fossil being bigger than Omega though. I looked at Fossil's annual report, they did $3.2 billion in 2015.

Hi Tom

The tabulation is fine if you want to compare gizmos that are worn on the wrist.
You could then argue why not include gold bracelets encrusted with diamonds etc.

The simple truth is that Rolex is a 100% mechanical device and the Apple is an extension of a computer, so it will fulfil a different function. The chances are that the Rolex will continue to rise in price whilst the Apple will lower in price as technology improves.

I suspect in 10 years time, nearly everyone will wear an Apple as well as a watch and that will satisfy two different needs and markets.

Regards

Mick

[porschedude]

One thing I do like about the apple watch is that several of my friends who are not watch people have purchased apple watches and have since become interested in watches so I think that aspect is kind of cool.

[tom2517]

Originally Posted by Mick P

Hi Tom

The tabulation is fine if you want to compare gizmos that are worn on the wrist.
You could then argue why not include gold bracelets encrusted with diamonds etc.

The simple truth is that Rolex is a 100% mechanical device and the Apple is an extension of a computer, so it will fulfil a different function. The chances are that the Rolex will continue to rise in price whilst the Apple will lower in price as technology improves.

I suspect in 10 years time, nearly everyone will wear an Apple as well as a watch and that will satisfy two different needs and markets.

Regards

Mick

Come on Mick, first automobile and now gold diamond encrusted bracelet? They don't tell time.

But I am in agreement that a whole lot of people will eventually buy a smartwatch, and I will even add that includes people in this forum who likes to bash Apple Watch, for now.

[Ritch99]

The whole Apple watch vs Rolex is like comparing toasters to classic cars. Both are machines, but one has nothing to do with the other.

The Apple watch is an ordinary piece of tech that most would use everyday. Rolex mechanical watches are for those that appreciate the brand, precision and craftmanship of each piece.

More people will buy toasters more often because of necessity and need vs the clasdic car.

More people wll buy an Apple watch more often due to need and low comparative price. Those that buy a Rolex will do so because of a desire to own a luxury item and the prestige and happiness it gives the owner. I highly doubt anyone will eventually have an Apple watch collection or see trusted sellers offering them anytime soon.

They are 2 completely different animals.