Community Stories

If you were to start a collection from 0.

TechFounder
Posts
261
Likes
179
fibonacci fibonacci
I am not saying that because we have phones we do not need wearable health tracking devices. I am saying that because we have phones, and as the technology inevitably miniaturizes, health tracking devices do not specifically need to be watches with little screens that you strap to your wrist. Rings, necklaces, bracelets, ankle bracelets, etc can all potentially do the job just as well.
There’s no need for these external sensors if you have a watch. And, you need the watch form factor because it’s alway with you strapped to your wrist. You can’t strap your phone to your body all the time. That would be ridicules.

The only peripherals that will be needed are those that have features that can’t be fulfilled using a watch, such as a pee stick to measure and gather urine samples.

Dan S Dan S
IMO, wearing smart devices on the wrist is just a transition between pocket-computers (aka phones) and implants.

"It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future." 😁
Show of hands who here wants to have their bodies cut open rather than just strapping on a watch? Case closed.
Edited:
 
Dan S
Posts
24,266
Likes
54,035
TechFounder TechFounder
Case closed.

This arrogance made me smile. As you may know, there are hundreds of thousands of people with cochlear implants. Nobody can say what people will accept in the future in return for potential/perceived improvements to their quality of life. It just depends on what advantages are provided.
 
TechFounder
Posts
261
Likes
179
Dan S Dan S
This arrogance made me smile. As you may know, there are hundreds of thousands of people with cochlear implants. Nobody can say what people will accept in the future in return for potential/perceived improvements to their quality of life. It just depends on what advantages are provided.
I don't doubt that implants will always be used by those in medical need such as pacemakers and insulin pumps but no one in their right minds would want to voluntarily have their bodies cut open when strapping on a watch could be just as effective. In fact, Steve Jobs purportedly refused cancer treatment initially because he didn't want to have his body cut open. He paid for it with his life. So, the hurdle for implants is very high indeed.
 
Dan S
Posts
24,266
Likes
54,035
TechFounder TechFounder
I don't doubt that implants will always be used by those in medical need such as pacemakers and insulin pumps but no one in their right minds would want to voluntarily have their bodies cut open when strapping on a watch could be just as effective. In fact, Steve Jobs purportedly refused cancer treatment initially because he didn't want to have his body cut open. He paid for it with his life. So, the hurdle for implants is very high indeed.

You may be right, I guess we'll see. Steve Jobs is one person. Huge numbers of people pay enormous amounts of money to voluntarily have their bodies cut open every day for cosmetic procedures, including implants.

And I don't doubt that electronic implants will provide a greatly enhanced experience compared to a watch, so I wouldn't simply assume that a watch is "just as effective". Most likely this will start in the military and the hard-core gaming community.
 
TechFounder
Posts
261
Likes
179
Dan S Dan S
And I don't doubt that electronic implants will provide a greatly enhanced experience compared to a watch, so I wouldn't simply assume that a watch is "just as effective". Most likely this will start in the military and the hard-core gaming community.
An implanted sensor will absolutely be more accurate than getting it outside of the body. Many vitals are only available internally.
 
fibonacci
Posts
171
Likes
386
TechFounder TechFounder
There’s no need for these external sensors if you have a watch.

You have it backwards. Since you're going to still have your phone in your pocket, there's no need for a watch when a tiny sensor will do.

This is just a lighter version of @Dan S 's argument for implanted sensors, by the way. Your objection to that is that people won't want implants (which I think is a reasonable rebuttal); I don't really understand why you're coming from a completely different direction with mine.
 
gbesq
Posts
9,741
Likes
54,495
TechFounder, you are absolutely right when you point out both the advantages that the Apple Watch has now over its mechanical counterparts as well as its future potential for many applications, medical monitoring included. In point of fact, in 2019 Apple sold more Apple Watches (31 million) than the entire output of the Swiss watch industry (21 million) - impressive indeed given that the Apple Watch was introduced in 2015. What I think that you choose to ignore, however, is that from 2015 to 2019, the overall output of the Swiss watch industry did not decline to the same extent as sales of the Apple Watch increased. What that tells me is that that while there is an overlap in the subsets of consumers who are interested in each product, by no means are the two groups identical. In others word, has the introduction of the Apple Watch caused a decline in the total sales volume of the Swiss watch industry? Absolutely. But, has Apple cannibalized the sale of Swiss watches on a unit for unit basis? No. This gets to the gist of my prior posts. Swiss mechanical watches continue to offer intangibles that the Apple Watch does not. Simply put, the Apple Watch is not jewelry nor is it a status symbol. It’s a wrist worn computer that needs to be replaced every 3-5 years. Sure, it tells the time and the date in addition to its many other applications. In that sense, it overlaps the functions of ANY watch whether it’s a $20 Casio or a $10,000 Omega. But the fact is that it’s not, nor will it ever be, a luxury Swiss timepiece. And that difference has meaning for many consumers. So I think that there is some truth in the assertion of another member’s post that you are comparing apples to oranges. By the way, your argument is even weaker when it comes to the market for vintage luxury watches. I would venture to guess that the average collector on this forum could care less about any comparison that you might make between the Apple Watch and a 1950s-60s Omega Constellation - their inability to incorporate medical monitoring technology has no bearing on why we seek, collect and pay handsomely for them.
Edited:
 
TechFounder
Posts
261
Likes
179
fibonacci fibonacci
You have it backwards. Since you're going to still have your phone in your pocket, there's no need for a watch when a tiny sensor will do.

That's the thing, you're not going to have your phone with you all the time. What if your phone is in the downstairs living room and you're upstairs in the bedroom having a coronary event? How would your dumb sensor strapped to your wrist help you with no display? How will it even know without a computational device like a phone or watch to make the determination?
 
fibonacci
Posts
171
Likes
386
TechFounder TechFounder
That's the thing, you're not going to have your phone with you all the time. What if your phone is in the downstairs living room and you're upstairs in the bedroom having a coronary event? How would your dumb sensor strapped to your wrist help you with no display? How will it even know without a computational device like a phone or watch to make the determination?
Great, we are finally getting somewhere here. The part you're missing is that in this scenario it is not a dumb sensor. It has literally all of the computational capabilities of your watch, just in a tiny form factor. It will call an ambulance for you. It will alert your designated contacts. It will do whatever it is you want it to do. What is a display giving you here, anyway? If I'm having a heart attack I don't want to have to be screwing with a screen in the first place.

(Some feedback is probably useful so that you know if it failed to do its job and you need to locate your phone or shout for help or something, but you don't need a watch-sized display for that. Audio, an led, vibration, etc could serve the purpose. Open your imagination a little bit.)
Edited:
 
TechFounder
Posts
261
Likes
179
gbesq gbesq
TechFounder, you are absolutely right when you point out both the advantages that the Apple Watch has now over its mechanical counterpart as well as its future potential for many applications, medical monitoring included. In point of fact, in 2019 Apple sold more Apple Watches (31 million) than the entire output of the Swiss watch industry (21 million) - impressive indeed given that the Apple Watch was introduced in 2015. What I think that you choose to ignore, however, is that from 2015 to 2019, the overall output of the Swiss watch industry did not decline to the same extent as sales of the Apple Watch increased. What that tells me is that that while there is an overlap in the subsets of consumers who are interested in each product, by no means are the two groups identical. In others word, has the introduction of the Apple Watch caused a decline in the total sales volume of the Swiss watch industry? Absolutely. But, has Apple cannibalized the sale of Swiss watches on a unit to unit basis? No. This gets to the gist of my prior posts. Swiss mechanical watches continue to offer intangibles that the Apple Watch does not. Simply put, the Apple Watch is not jewelry nor is it a status symbol. It’s a wrist worn computer that needs to be replaced every 3-5 years. Sure, it tells the time and the date in addition to its many other applications. In that sense, it overlaps the functions of ANY watch whether it’s a $20 Casio or a $10,000 Omega. But the fact is that it’s not, nor will it ever be, a luxury Swiss timepiece. And that difference has meaning for many consumers. So I think that there is some truth in the assertion of another member’s post that you are comparing apples to oranges. By the way, your argument is weaker when it comes to the market for vintage watches. I would venture to guess that the average collector on this forum could care less about any comparison that you might make between the Apple Watch and a 1950s-60s Omega Constellation - their inability to incorporate medical monitoring technology has no bearing on why we seek, collect and pay handsomely for them.
You're correct in saying that the Apple Watch is not in the same category as jewelry(status symbol)/fashion. In fact, I always thought that if Steve were alive he would have seen that the killer feature of the Watch is health. Steve was always able to hone in on exactly what the killer feature of a particular product elicits. Without him, the Apple Watch had a very rocky start. Remember that Ive and the rest of the senior management team tried to position the Watch as jewelry(status symbol)/fashion in the beginning? They even hired a Head of Retail that was from the industry, Angela Ahrens. They had precious metal and ceramic models that cost thousands. This was a huge mistake. Ives thought wrongly that it's a watch first and health/medical device third or fourth on the long list of capabilities.

So, the way to think about the Apple Watch is that it's a medical/health device that happens to tell time and do many other things. And that's why it's a trojan horse. People buying it is not after the status/jewelry/fashion aspect of it so much as it helps them live longer/healthier. And because you have to keep it on your as much as possible to derive the maximum benefit from it, the mechanical watch loses because most people are not going to wear two watches. That leaves very little, if any, wrist time for the mechanical watch.
 
gbesq
Posts
9,741
Likes
54,495
TechFounder TechFounder
You're correct in saying that the Apple Watch is not in the same category as jewelry(status symbol)/fashion. In fact, I always thought that if Steve were alive he would have seen that the killer feature of the Watch is health. Steve was always able to hone in on exactly what the killer feature of a particular product elicits. Without him, the Apple Watch had a very rocky start. Remember that Ive and the rest of the senior management team tried to position the Watch as jewelry(status symbol)/fashion in the beginning? They even hired a Head of Retail that was from the industry, Angela Ahrens. They had precious metal and ceramic models that cost thousands. This was a huge mistake. Ives thought wrongly that it's a watch first and health/medical device third or fourth on the long list of capabilities.

So, the way to think about the Apple Watch is that it's a medical/health device that happens to tell time and do many other things. And that's why it's a trojan horse. People buying it is not after the status/jewelry/fashion aspect of it so much as it helps them live longer/healthier. And because you have to keep it on your as much as possible to derive the maximum benefit from it, the mechanical watch loses because most people are not going to wear two watches. That leaves very little, if any, wrist time for the mechanical watch.
I think you’re mistaken, but we can agree to disagree.
 
TechFounder
Posts
261
Likes
179
fibonacci fibonacci
Great, we are finally getting somewhere here. The part you're missing is that in this scenario it is not a dumb sensor. It has literally all of the computational capabilities of your watch, just in a tiny form factor. It will call an ambulance for you. It will alert your designated contacts. It will do whatever it is you want it to do. What is a display giving you here, anyway? If I'm having a heart attack I don't want to have to be screwing with a screen in the first place.

(Some feedback is probably useful so that you know if it failed to do its job and you need to locate your phone or shout for help or something, but you don't need a watch-sized display for that. Audio, an led, vibration, etc could serve the purpose. Open your imagination a little bit.)
So what you're really objecting to is a display? Well, the reason for the display is that it allows you to do a lot more things than a device that doesn't have one. So, what you're describing is basically an Apple Watch without a display which I don't think Apple will ever put out as then you're really reducing the capabilities of the device.
 
Larry S
Posts
13,701
Likes
53,507
TechFounder TechFounder
You're correct in saying that the Apple Watch is not in the same category as jewelry(status symbol) And because you have to keep it on your as much as possible to derive the maximum benefit from it, the mechanical watch loses because most people are not going to wear two watches. That leaves very little, if any, wrist time for the mechanical watch.
I have lots of Apple devices. I don’t need another one on my wrist, something else to worry about charging. That’s not the point of owning fine mechanical or fine quartz watches anyway.
 
STANDY
Posts
16,863
Likes
47,901
But I see more going from a Fitbit or Apple Watch to a mechanical than vice versa in many younger ones at my work. Seen most of the Fitbit crowd go to actual watches and not just one or two ( admittedly more Quartz than mechanical )
 
Larry S
Posts
13,701
Likes
53,507
fibonacci fibonacci
Great, we are finally getting somewhere here. The part you're missing is that in this scenario it is not a dumb sensor. It has literally all of the computational capabilities of your watch, just in a tiny form factor. It will call an ambulance for you. It will alert your designated contacts. It will do whatever it is you want it to do. What is a display giving you here, anyway? If I'm having a heart attack I don't want to have to be screwing with a screen in the first place.

(Some feedback is probably useful so that you know if it failed to do its job and you need to locate your phone or shout for help or something, but you don't need a watch-sized display for that. Audio, an led, vibration, etc could serve the purpose. Open your imagination a little bit.)
Friend of mine, a Apple Watch cultist, was actually pushing his wife to get one for his 90 years old mother in law, vs a med alert fob. The ridicule he received was hysterical.
 
TechFounder
Posts
261
Likes
179
Larry S Larry S
Friend of mine, a Apple Watch cultist, was actually pushing his wife to get one for his 90 years old mother in law, vs a med alert fob. The ridicule he received was hysterical.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi
I believe they're at stage two? 😜

If I had or knows someone who has Alzeheimer I would most definitely recommend an Apple Watch at this point. I think each of us has a different threshold as to when there are enough health benefits to getting an Apple Watch. Eventually, most of us will get there...
 
Engee
Posts
1,542
Likes
3,354
TechFounder TechFounder
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi
I believe they're at stage two? 😜

If I had or knows someone who has Alzeheimer I would most definitely recommend an Apple Watch at this point. I think each of us has a different threshold as to when there are enough health benefits to getting an Apple Watch. Eventually, most of us will get there...
The window for someone with Alzheimer’s being able to use an Apple Watch is tiny. My father-in-law has it. When it was first diagnosed we got him a simple alarm / gps watch just in case he should happen to get lost on his twice weekly bus ride and he never even managed to make sense of that. My mother-in-law has no signs of dementia at all. We got her an Apple Watch just so she could monitor various things and she’s struggling with it, and she’s been using an iPad for a few years. Apple watches are no good for the elderly or people with dementia.
 
Larry S
Posts
13,701
Likes
53,507
TechFounder TechFounder
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi
I believe they're at stage two? 😜

If I had or knows someone who has Alzeheimer I would most definitely recommend an Apple Watch at this point. I think each of us has a different threshold as to when there are enough health benefits to getting an Apple Watch. Eventually, most of us will get there...
“She can barely work her Jitterbug!” (a flip phone for old people) was the comment. I think perhaps you underestimate how fiddly those AW’s are.
 
TechFounder
Posts
261
Likes
179
Engee Engee
The window for someone with Alzheimer’s being able to use an Apple Watch is tiny. My father-in-law has it. When it was first diagnosed we got him a simple alarm / gps watch just in case he should happen to get lost on his twice weekly bus ride and he never even managed to make sense of that. My mother-in-law has no signs of dementia at all. We got her an Apple Watch just so she could monitor various things and she’s struggling with it, and she’s been using an iPad for a few years. Apple watches are no good for the elderly or people with dementia.
You misunderstood. The watch will be used to track where I am at all times. If I were to walk out, any family member would be able to find me so long as I don't remove it.
 
16 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

Steph9622

If you were to…

Steph9622 Open Discussion
bgrisso
bgrisso
Posts
9
Views
457
Annapolis

If you were interested in a 1977 watch...

Annapolis Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
Annapolis
Annapolis
Posts
19
Views
8K
K

If you were to start your own watch company what will you call it and what type of watches would you

kostas123 Open Discussion
FullyWound
FullyWound
Posts
20
Views
4K