Hacker News Reader

Comment by RyanZAG | Hacker News Reader

If they price this to compete with typical mid-high watches, then you're looking at about $4000 [1] which is more than enough to get some very impressive display technology in there.

If they skimp and try to put in cheap hardware and go for a $500 price target then this is going to fall flat. Hopefully they understand the watch market and know to charge more and put in the best materiel, but knowing the tech industry I doubt it a lot.

[1] http://www.thewatchquote.com/List-Price-and-tariff-for-Montb...

View on HN

$4000 is insane for a piece of consumer electronics OR a watch. A watch that expensive is purely status-indicating jewelry.

If all you want to do is tell the time quickly, a $10 quartz watch does the job just fine.

I am sure Vertu or some other ridiculous company will sell you your insane diamond-encrusted titanium penis size signifier with a touch screen and Android Wear integration, but it won't be any more functional than the regular version.

This was, by far the best cost/benefit watch that I found latelly: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004VR9HP2/ref=oh_details_o...

Also, Swatch have some very nice ones, with a VERY good price.

Why does everyone go crazy about the timex weekender? Am I the only person that thinks it looks like a dollar store watch for children?

Honestly, I really like the design. :)

Simple, round, small.

With this round steel case, you could even exchange the wristband for a brown lethear one and get a more mature look (all this for only 30 bucks).

Don't take this the wrong way but: That thing doesn't even have a respectable water-resistant rating, I was very exciting when I clicked on that link because I'm in the market for a new watch, but I need something that can take more than a couple drops of water...

For comparison: My first two watches lasted 2 years each and costed me ~$10 a pop plus they had a WR rating of 300m. Sadly they looked kinda juvenile and I needed something with a little more status, but I'm leaning on just going back because they really worked!

Does 30m (99ft) not translate to approx 30 meters/99 foot underwater for watches? If you want a watch to go diving in fair enough, but the way I read that it seems a fair bit more than a couple drops of water?

so it's strange but that's not quite how it works, Here's a pretty good explainantion of what those numbers actually mean: http://deloachwatchservice.com/other_stuff/water_resistancy....

Wow, thanks for that! I'm in the market too so I'll definitely bear that in mind. Bizarre that they advertise them numbers without such an explanation.

I think all depends on your usage...

I personally never bath with a watch on and never go swimming with this particular watch (I have another one that I use mainly for outdoor activities. A Casio rated to 100 meters).

I really dig watches, and when you start to collect some of them you actually find it's quite fun to chose the right one for the right ocasion! :)

"A watch that expensive is purely status-indicating jewelry."

For those of a certain extreme old age, say, over 30, one problem is not wearing a watch has been a display of wealth for some decades now. The signal is, "I don't wear a watch anymore, I pay an expensive cellphone contract instead". Last time I wore a watch was during the Clinton presidency.

For elders like me, wearing a watch would indicate I'm too poor to have a phone.

I think you can get an old feature phone for $10 these days

That was the whole point of being (well) over 30, when it was far more expensive (well, inflation adjusted, anyway).

Put another way the first cell phone contract I was aware of, was four times our current cable TV bill. Or about ten times the landline bill. So that would be quite expensive indeed.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not..

Most over 30 who want to show off their wealth actually do wear a watch, an expensive one at that. I don't know where you get this bs notion that NOT wearing a watch is a sign of wealth. You don't have to be rich to afford a $50-80/mo. contract but you do for that $100,000 Vacheron.

“You see this watch? That watch costs more than your car. I made $970.000 last year, how much’d you make? You see, pal, that’s who I am, and you’re nothing.”

— Blake, Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

If they price this to compete with typical mid-high watches, then you're looking at about $4000

...which will render the product DOA.

I can't imagine anyone releasing any sort of smart watch that breaks the $1000 barrier. I think that sub $500 is probably necessary to get any kind of traction at all.

You are missing a big factor in the 5k USD watch. It is expected to last you a lifetime, if not more. It's more like an heirloom. This watch, at the pace technology is moving would be lucky to last a year.

Hopefully they'll just sell it for a regular price and people will put I Am Rich[0] on there to distinguish themselves.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich

I'm curious - what does spending $4000 on a watch get you?

You'd have better success taking that $4000 watch and adding android bits to it. Advertise it as the same expensive fancy watch with more smarts in it. That ball is in the fancy-watch company's court, not google's.

Pretty much the same thing that spending a few hundred will get you. Upwards of ~$500, watches are jewelry. You might as well be buying diamonds. The value is 100% in the eye of the beholder (e.g. mechanical movements that are beautiful, but no more accurate than quartz, rarer materials, name brand, etc...)

This is not targeted at watch enthusiasts. This is for the consumer electronics market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com