Watches Are Rediscovered by the Cellphone Generation | Hacker News Reader

Watches Are Rediscovered by the Cellphone Generation

nytimes.com

11 pointsjamesbritt23 comments

Open articleView on HN

The suit is back.

That came to mind as soon as I read the headline.

For those who haven't read it:

http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

I read this and thought of you.

I think you've said you bought PR for Viaweb. Any guidelines you can share? In short, what can founders do to best shape how they're covered?

I don't think most startups need to anymore.

Does YC prepare startups in any way in talking to the press? Or is that more informal?

To some extent, case by case.

Any tips or thoughts you could share publicly?

Hmm. That thought never occurred to me.

I need to read more attentively.

Flag if this really is a bullshit post.

Edit: On re-reading I don't see this as a submarine, unless it's just for the general idea of selling watches. But I don't get that vibe.

The idea they're selling is that you need a new watch. It's something a major watch maker can push through a savvy PR firm especially to counter declining sales.

See, I didn't get that. Nothing in that article made me think getting a watch would be a good for me.

That's good PR. If it seemed that way, it would read as an advertisement.

That's good PR. If it seemed that way, it would read as an advertisement.

Or, you know, maybe it's just an article about people wearing watches.

Do you assume that every article that doesn't feel like an ad is really just a well-done ad? That would be a bit bizarre, like my magic charm that keeps dragons away; don't see any dragons? My magic charm must work.

It's a fine question. But now when I read these pieces on trends, I do wonder. It's almost too good as a piece by itself. Would a reporter really care enough about watches to do all the research? It seems more like something that was teed up for them.

Read pg's essay. Then read this piece again. What suggests that it's truly original reporting?

Read pg's essay. Then read this piece again.

I had already read Paul's essay, and still nothing set off my Secret Ad alert. Maybe I'm not cynical enough.

What suggests that it's truly original reporting?

What suggests that an article in the fashion section of the NY Times is going to be truly original reporting?

I read the article and it resonnated with me because I used to carry a watch (but never cared for wearing them). Now I have a phone to tell me the time but in practice it's sort of cumbersome. A dedicated time-telling device might actually be useful, and I was curious if other people on HN had been considering this. And in that context an article that's just an article in the NY Times seems pretty plausible; I bet a good number of people have considered that using phone to quickly check the time can be annoying.

Sure, this might be a really stealth ad or PR piece, but there might also be geek oneupmanship at play, with people eager to show off how quickly they can spot a stealth ad even where none exists.

Since I can't bring my cellphone into work, I'd been considering buying a watch, but couldn't decide what kind. Now I realize it needs to be a Rolex Submariner. Or perhaps a novelty plastic watch shaped like a submarine.

ie 3 piece suit?

"Mr. Chai, 38, has been wearing a vintage Rolex, loosely dangling around his wrist, “not as a timepiece, but as a piece of jewelry,” he said"

This is exactly what Rolex is. There is a fantastic book on the history of Rolex, the name I forget, but the opening quote is from a Rolex designer and it is along the lines of "do not ask me about the watch industry, Rolex is not in the time keeping industry, Rolexes are fashion accessories."

I believe the reason why watches "are back" is because the mobile phone industry is far more contained than it was even five years ago. Five years ago, having a flash mobile phone was impressive - but now - everyone just has iPhones or Blackberries. A Rolex is timelessly classic, it is subtle yet if you happen to notice it, you know the guy has good taste - or money, and those two are regularly conflated in fashion.

Timex are the guys that are really capitalising on this trend, if you got into a slightly up market fashion retailer like J Crew, you are bombarded with classic Timex watches and then you can tailor them with multi coloured nato straps. http://www.jcrew.com/mens_category/accessories/necessaryluxu...

it is subtle yet if you happen to notice it, you know the guy has good taste - or money, and those two are regularly conflated in fashion.

Almost. The trouble (so to speak) with something like a Rolex is that has a known, built-in, association with "taste"; knowing nothing about taste but wanting to impress people I could pick a Rolex and be done.

This depends on the industry you're in. When I was in a sales floor, everyone had a nice watch. They were considered status symbols and proof of your skill as a salesman. When I went to my first tech conference I noticed most people had either no watch, or a digital one that didn't seem expensive. Also, now that I'm away from sales, I either sold or stored every watch I own. When I want to know the time, I just look at my cell phone. Atomic time is good enough for me.

Watches haven't been a major time-telling device in nearly two decades. Watches are jewelry, just like earrings, bracelets and necklaces. That is the main point of the article, and I agree.

Wearing a $10K piece of bling to work is tacky.

Not all $10k pieces are bling, in case that's what you're inferring.

A watch these days may strike some people as an impractical, frivolous and often costly way to express individual style. But that is just another way of saying that it’s fashion.

Whether or not the rest of the article is hogwash, that's a golden quote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com