If Rolex created a smartwatch

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by padi56

Short answer no and would expect and hope they never will a mechanical watch has something a computer so called watch can never have..

Perfectly said! And that's the same reason I don't care for Seiko's computerized Spring Drive watches.

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

Perfectly said! And that's the same reason I don't care for Seiko's computerized Spring Drive watches.

'Computerized' is a bit strong - SD is a mechanical movement with an electronic regulator.
Mech, quartz, hybrid... it's all good.

[juliet]

Lot of people on here are answering a question that wasn't asked.

I get that most don't want Rolex to make a smartwatch, but if it appeared on their website tomorrow I imagine it would sell just fine.

[morglaw]

I would be very curious to see that Rolex would create, but yes, for the collection I think it's worth to buy

[Jakey]

So we are confident Rolex wont fall into the same trap as Kodak by failing to keep up with technology?maybe not in this generation but I think a time will come when mechanical watches will become museum artefacts. I only wear my Apple watch and have done for the last 8 years despite buying new watches. My new watches simply sit in the box for the purpose of admiration and enjoyment of the brand.

[Dsmith1974]

How about a Rolex badged FitBit?

I joke..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onikage]

Goes against the whole SWISS MADE thing just a little don't you think? Throw away constantly outdated unserviceable crap. No I wouldn't buy one. I haven't bought one yet and if I had to have one I wouldn't buy one if Rolex put their name to it. I wear a 16710 for God's sake. A 16710!

[Jimmy 1665]

It'd be redundant within 3 years as technology advances so quickly and the battery doesn't hold an effective change, ending up no more than an annoying thing in the kitchen drawer of randomness!
My 1665 is 39 this year, that longevity is not going to happen with a smart watch, even if it is beautifully crafted by Rolex.
Saying that, someone will certainly buy that build and smart model just because it wears the crown and they have more money than sense!
Could Rolex do the same as Apple with a trade in service on their annual release

[Spoonage]

I would not. I have been very reluctant to buy the Android version of the Apple Watch. I do see the benefits of that type of device, but would rather buy a Suunto or similar to get about the same functionality. My opinion a smart watch like the Android / Apple watches just makes you overly connected and don't see myself ever purchasing one. Mechanical watches for me.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Psmith

'Computerized' is a bit strong - SD is a mechanical movement with an electronic regulator.
Mech, quartz, hybrid... it's all good.

Exactly and a very complicated totally hand built movement,and in general a lot more parts than say a Rolex movement.

[sgwatchguy]

This may be a mission for the Q branch then, to marry a mechanical Rolex with smart watch features that Bond would be proud of.

[Rocco21]

Nope, I just can’t bring myself to wear a digital at all.Rather not wear a watch.

[1William]

No thank you.

[Piguette]

Hell No!

[pickettt]

I don’t know. Let’s see it, then I can make a rational decision.

[encarter13]

I bought an apple watch a few years back and tried to love it. Just couldn't get accustomed to it. Hated it. Sold it.

I wouldn't buy a smartwatch; regardless of the manufacturer.

[Boba Fett]

No I wouldn't buy one.
Rolex would not go there. The problems with tech, battery longevity and the rate at which hardware and software move forward means smart watches have a very limited life span compared to a multi life time Rolex watch. It's so far away from what they make its inconceivable. Quartz was a bit more realistic as the oyster quartz was made in the same way as the autos with a long life span in mind.
I would buy an oyster quartz when I have other bases covered.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by Psmith

'Computerized' is a bit strong - SD is a mechanical movement with an electronic regulator. Mech, quartz, hybrid... it's all good.

Originally Posted by padi56

Exactly and a very complicated totally hand built movement,and in general a lot more parts than say a Rolex movement.

Its a partly mechanical movement that uses an electronically powered computer chip and quartz oscillator to electronically regulate the speed of the watch.

When a Seiko Spring Drive watch utilizes its computer processing and quartz oscillator to run the watch very accurately, its neat. However, I am more impressed when Rolex uses half the parts and no computing or electrical power to run watches within a second a day.

[Spectre38]

Nope.

[/16610]

I wouldn’t want Rolex to even think about it

I’m not against smartwatches per se; I happily wear an Apple Watch for a lot of the time, it’s a great bit of kit and ‘swims in a different lane’ to Rolexes and the like.

‘Luxury’ smartwatches are a dead-end, just like ‘luxury’ smartphones like Vertu etc.

Apple are leagues ahead of the ‘legacy’ watch companies tech-wise (an R&D budget of c.£13b/pa), and Apple already provide quality design and materials... you don’t want any more care to go in to this stuff anyway, as you’ll be wanting to upgrade every 2/3 years.

Might be worth it to make a quick buck for companies like TAG, but institutions (Rolex, Patek) that prize reputation and excellence over short term profit should steer well clear.

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

Its a partly mechanical movement that uses an electronically powered computer chip and quartz oscillator to electronically regulate the speed of the watch.

When a Seiko Spring Drive watch utilizes its computer processing and quartz oscillator to run the watch very accurately, its neat. However, I am more impressed when Rolex uses half the parts and no computing or electrical power to run watches within a second a day.

This is skewed though, and not comparing like with like. Describing SD movements as partly mechanical is an exaggeration - everything is mechanical except for the regulator, and there is no electrical power/battery used. They typically have high torque, long power reserves, PR meters and other mechanical complications/refinements. Comparing movements by the number of parts doesn't make much sense, unless perhaps they have the exact same complications and can achieve the same consistent accuracy. 'Half the parts' is untrue, unless you are comparing say a 3-hander with a chrono. A Rolex movement consistently running within 1 sec /day is unlikely, whereas SD will run with consistent high accuracy over a long time period.

https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/ab...nt/springdrive

MECHANISM

Powered by the mainspring

Spring Drive is powered by a mainspring, just like all other mechanical watches. This traditional way of generating power allows the watch to be entirely autonomous, with no need for a battery or other power source.

Winding the mainspring by turning the crown or by moving the wrist stores energy which is then transferred to gears and used to move the watch hands as the spring unwinds over time.

By taking advantage of the high level of torque afforded by the mainspring, the caliber needs no other power to move the long, wide hands in the smooth glide motion that is Spring Drive’s signature.

[Rebel]

No. Next question.

[No SUBctitute]

While the Spring Drive movement may be mostly mechanical, it uses a computer for the most important part of a movement--to regulate the movement and tell time accurately. Thus, I'm far less impressed with a Spring Drive that beats within the listed tolerance of +/-15 seconds per month than a Rolex running at its listed tolerance of +/-2 seconds per day. You said that a Rolex running within 1 second per day is "unlikely." I see lots of anecdotal evidence on this board of modern Rolex/Tudor running well under the 2 seconds per day day, and many dead on. So I wouldn't agree that its "unlikely." The Spring Drive is interesting, but much less interesting to me than a precision engineered purely mechanical device that only uses physics to create a highly accurate watch. I like things traditional--of course, maybe I'm just a dinosaur since I don't even do things like use social media to tell others about the latest piece of avocado toast I ate.

(I only mentioned the number pf parts in response to another member posting that the Spring Drive movement was hand built and complex and had many more parts than a Rolex mechanical movement--it actually looks like a 3 hand Spring Drive movement and 3135 both have in the neighborhood of 200 parts.)

Originally Posted by Psmith

This is skewed though, and not comparing like with like. Describing SD movements as partly mechanical is an exaggeration - everything is mechanical except for the regulator, and there is no electrical power/battery used. They typically have high torque, long power reserves, PR meters and other mechanical complications/refinements. Comparing movements by the number of parts doesn't make much sense, unless perhaps they have the exact same complications and can achieve the same consistent accuracy. 'Half the parts' is untrue, unless you are comparing say a 3-hander with a chrono. A Rolex movement consistently running within 1 sec /day is unlikely, whereas SD will run with consistent high accuracy over a long time period.

https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/ab...nt/springdrive

MECHANISM

Powered by the mainspring

Spring Drive is powered by a mainspring, just like all other mechanical watches. This traditional way of generating power allows the watch to be entirely autonomous, with no need for a battery or other power source.

Winding the mainspring by turning the crown or by moving the wrist stores energy which is then transferred to gears and used to move the watch hands as the spring unwinds over time.

By taking advantage of the high level of torque afforded by the mainspring, the caliber needs no other power to move the long, wide hands in the smooth glide motion that is Spring Drive’s signature.

[Psmith]

Originally Posted by No SUBctitute

While the Spring Drive movement may be mostly mechanical, it uses a computer for the most important part of a movement--to regulate the movement and tell time accurately. Thus, I'm far less impressed with a Spring Drive that beats within the listed tolerance of +/-15 seconds per month than a Rolex running at its listed tolerance of +/-2 seconds per day. You said that a Rolex running within 1 second per day is "unlikely." I see lots of anecdotal evidence on this board of modern Rolex/Tudor running well under the 2 seconds per day day, and many dead on. So I wouldn't agree that its "unlikely." The Spring Drive is interesting, but much less interesting to me than a precision engineered purely mechanical device that only uses physics to create a highly accurate watch. I like things traditional--of course, maybe I'm just a dinosaur since I don't even do things like use social media to tell others about the latest piece of avocado toast I ate.

(I only mentioned the number pf parts in response to another member posting that the Spring Drive movement was hand built and complex and had many more parts than a Rolex mechanical movement--it actually looks like a 3 hand Spring Drive movement and 3135 both have in the neighborhood of 200 parts.)

I think the key here is consistency - SD movements are rated at +/- 0.5 sec/day (+/- 10 sec/month) or +/- 1 sec/day (+/- 15 sec/month) and sometimes these stated figures are even bettered in reality. But the point is they can do this consistently, in a way that no purely mech movement can. Of course watches are personal and emotional objects, and technical merits are only part of the story. Personally I find all of the tech interesting... and of course let's not forget that Seiko soundly spanked Rolex and other Swiss makers in chronometer tests back in the day, long before Spring Drive
And I certainly agree with you about social media and avocado toast!

[ras47]

I've tried several smart watches. They have some great features but in the end I find them way too intrusive. This may be the codger in me peeking out, but even my iPhone is too intrusive sometimes. These days life moves fast. Add a family to the mix and you have a need for being in communication at any time. Still, I miss the days when my BlackBerry was my mobile digital connection.

I tried several Apple watches, a Samsung Gear watch, and a few others. I quickly tire of having constant notifications on my wrist. Seemed cool at first. Then it just got annoying. Also, the need to charge a smartwatch daily or almost daily completely ruins the deal for me. I can't take off for a long weekend in the woods with my Apple watch unless I want to tote along some kind of solar charging rig. What I want - what I need - is a watch I can strap on and not worry about. Something on which I can rely without it distracting me.

I have nothing against digital watches. In fact, I like them. I have a Casio G-Shock I wear to work sometimes, on weekends sometimes, and whenever the mood strikes me. Depends on what I'm doing. Built in solar charging, but it can last six months or more without charging. Slim, tough, and doesn't set off the damn metal detector at work. As a "secure facility" we have TSA-style metal detectors at the doors.

[Overwound]

No. The only smart watch I like is the Apple Watch. Not so much for the looks but it's very well supported, secure and integrated to everything else I use. The price is acceptable for what you get as well. Going to another brand would be a step back for me. Also, I would not pay luxury watch prices for a smart watch. Tech moves too fast to choose a high priced option.

What happens four years from now after spending $5,000 on the smart Hublot? Possibly another $5,000 for upgraded hardware and software. No thanks. I can live with a few hundred every 3-4 years instead.

If I were an Android user my answer would be no for the same reasons as above.

[Lumberjact]

Originally Posted by Rolex-istanbul

Is Leica the ultimate luxry camera? yes

Leica was analog, earn its name by making the best analog cameras. Than came the digital age, they did not involve in the digital age right away. But when Nikon and Canon moves in the digital direction Leica adapted to the new age.

Is it still a good and luxry camera? YES

Why not Rolex?

Interesting question.

I would say that the "magic sauce" of a Leica camera is its lens. They didn't mess with that by going digital, which really only changed how the image is stored. The "magic sauce" of a Rolex (to follow this simple analogy) is its mechanical movement. Rolex going digital would simply make no sense other than for its novelty value.

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by Psmith

I think the key here is consistency - SD movements are rated at +/- 0.5 sec/day (+/- 10 sec/month) or +/- 1 sec/day (+/- 15 sec/month) and sometimes these stated figures are even bettered in reality. But the point is they can do this consistently, in a way that no purely mech movement can. Of course watches are personal and emotional objects, and technical merits are only part of the story. Personally I find all of the tech interesting... and of course let's not forget that Seiko soundly spanked Rolex and other Swiss makers in chronometer tests back in the day, long before Spring Drive
And I certainly agree with you about social media and avocado toast!

Great! I will look for your IG post with this weekend's avocado toast!

I agree, watches are emotional objects and you have to like what you own--that's the key point. If you are spending that much money, it better sing to you.

Regarding your point on consistency, Rolex's fantastic consistency is the reason that almost any modern Rolex can be regulated to operate within the +/-2 seconds standard. I think it has amazing consistency when compared with the computer regulated consistency of a Spring Drive. My Sub has been 1.6 seconds fast per day consistently ever since the week I bought it--that was 7 years ago.

[Plant]

No I dont think they would, it would damage the brand.

People would buy them if they did but I never would. I bought a Rolex because I plan to wear it everyday for 20 years. Unlike a smartwatch it will never be obsolete because it serves a purpose beyond simply telling the time. Its one of the very few things I own thats not disposable, that matters to me. A disposabe Rolex is not a Rolex, it defeats the purpose of owning one

[RyanJ]

Nope. Why would Rolex even attempt to do that? Rolex may be the big dog in the mechanical watch world but it would be puny in comparison to the big tech companies. They could buy all of Rolex with money found in their sofa cushions.

Yes I realize Rolex isn't for sale. That's just an example based on market value / brand value.

One thing I think Rolex does do extremely well is stay in its lane. It knows where to compete and when not to try.