Have in house movements made watches more boring?

Pete_NSOW

I was listening to the grey nato podcast the other day when one of the hosts started talking about their really interesting Omega Seamaster Regatta timer and the innovative way of displaying the complication. Also, they noted how after moving to the inhouse coaxial movement Omega has much more pedestrian regatta implementations. Which got me thinking - since going inhouse Nomos designs appear to be stagnating, Tudors use of the inhouse movement with the GMT function clearly hinders what they can do with that. Across the board I cant think of a single "mid range" brand that uses an inhouse movement as a base that has produced anything interesting like the Montblanc 1858 Geosphere module, Bel Canto etc.

My thesis is that the resources sunk in developing a new base movement simply suck up the resources needed to do other interesting designs. Worse, by having a unique base movement the economies of scale in developing a module that can be used in multiple places (so leading to the CW Bel Canto for example) are destroyed. And so its possible a whole array of interesting things like big dates, jumping hours, chiming watches, etc may be lost to the 'mid tier' on the alter of creating unique base work horses.

Thoughts?

#general #movements #inhousemovement #boring
Reply
JJMM1983
·

My personal opinion here. I'm no watch expert just a low tier watch fan. I find in house movement to be a more of a luxury thing ala Rolex, Omega and high tier players. Right now the competition is so harsh that I think is best for companies to stick to Seiko, Myiota, ETA movements. I think Zelos is doing it the right way with great build quality, great dials and small batches.

cornfedksboy
·

I know that developing complications is extremely expensive. I imagine that the innovator wants to use that base in as many things as possible.

One that will potentially be interesting in the future is the Oris Caliber 400. They have refined the crown issue and just released a manual movement. They might do some new and interesting things with, though they aren’t known for their complications.

Mr.Dee.Bater
·

Whenever discussion of in-house movements comes up, I'm a broken record - sorry @Aurelian, I'm sure you're going to create a poll now, asking if I should stop posting about how much BS is involved in in-house movements.

But, here it is again:

  • I would take an ETA or Sellita or Seiko or Miyota movement over an "in-house" 8 days a week

  • "Workhorse movements" have shown their reliability and quality in real-world, empirical, day-to-day use and abuse, for decades on end now

  • Parts are plentiful, any competent watch-maker is equipped to work on them, it's all relatively cheap to maintain, etc., etc.

  • The only reason that manufacturers are touting "in-house" movements is because the Swatch Group bought up all the movement manufacturers coming out of the quartz crisis, and then wanted to put all their competitors out of business by no longer supplying them with ETA movements, etc.  Unfortunately, the Swiss government stepped in to prevent free commerce.  As a result, all these manufacturers had to move in-house, and their marketing tells you that in-house is better

  • But, if in-house is better, why do in-house movements cost so much more?  As a business guy, my hypothesis is this:  "I gotta charge you a ton upfront, to cover all the downstream warranty costs I gotta eat, when the movement fails you!"

When it comes to complex mechanical components, to make something that will last 10, 20, 30, 40 years, and beyond, requires MASSIVE fixed cost R&D investment.  When that happens, you end up with "natural monopolies."  

Here are some other examples of natural monopolies:

  • Microsoft Windows

  • Shimano bicycle drive trains

  • ZF8 auto transmissions

  • Google search

What these all have in common is massive fixed cost R&D investment, that is then amortized over large numbers of units / transactions.  

When you try to create "in-house" alternatives, you end up utter crap - even if you have extremely deep pockets.  Back in the day, when IBM was a giant, they tried to come up with an alternative to Microsoft's OS, and created OS/2.  Utter crap and it died an ignominious death.  

Sram is trying to compete with Shimano, but their drive trains really only sell to a niche market.

Check out the Nissan CVT transmission.  If you Google it, the entire first page of results will link to class action lawsuits.  Arguably, CVT is why Nissan is considered such a lemon Japanese auto brand!

Aurelian
·
Mr.Dee.Bater

Whenever discussion of in-house movements comes up, I'm a broken record - sorry @Aurelian, I'm sure you're going to create a poll now, asking if I should stop posting about how much BS is involved in in-house movements.

But, here it is again:

  • I would take an ETA or Sellita or Seiko or Miyota movement over an "in-house" 8 days a week

  • "Workhorse movements" have shown their reliability and quality in real-world, empirical, day-to-day use and abuse, for decades on end now

  • Parts are plentiful, any competent watch-maker is equipped to work on them, it's all relatively cheap to maintain, etc., etc.

  • The only reason that manufacturers are touting "in-house" movements is because the Swatch Group bought up all the movement manufacturers coming out of the quartz crisis, and then wanted to put all their competitors out of business by no longer supplying them with ETA movements, etc.  Unfortunately, the Swiss government stepped in to prevent free commerce.  As a result, all these manufacturers had to move in-house, and their marketing tells you that in-house is better

  • But, if in-house is better, why do in-house movements cost so much more?  As a business guy, my hypothesis is this:  "I gotta charge you a ton upfront, to cover all the downstream warranty costs I gotta eat, when the movement fails you!"

When it comes to complex mechanical components, to make something that will last 10, 20, 30, 40 years, and beyond, requires MASSIVE fixed cost R&D investment.  When that happens, you end up with "natural monopolies."  

Here are some other examples of natural monopolies:

  • Microsoft Windows

  • Shimano bicycle drive trains

  • ZF8 auto transmissions

  • Google search

What these all have in common is massive fixed cost R&D investment, that is then amortized over large numbers of units / transactions.  

When you try to create "in-house" alternatives, you end up utter crap - even if you have extremely deep pockets.  Back in the day, when IBM was a giant, they tried to come up with an alternative to Microsoft's OS, and created OS/2.  Utter crap and it died an ignominious death.  

Sram is trying to compete with Shimano, but their drive trains really only sell to a niche market.

Check out the Nissan CVT transmission.  If you Google it, the entire first page of results will link to class action lawsuits.  Arguably, CVT is why Nissan is considered such a lemon Japanese auto brand!

Oh, but you misunderstand. This content is exactly what this site needs more of, not less. I agree with your argument and will add that historically if every watch company had their own bespoke movement then watches would have been rare and expensive. Most watches bought and worn in the last 100 years were affordable and serviceable because the movements fell into very standard forms.

As to the point of the OP, I am primed to agree but my opinions would necessarily be derivative.

M.addd
·

Im an in-house only guy and also a GS nut; i would not consider the Spring Drive or HAQ boring

Watchobsessive910
·
JJMM1983

My personal opinion here. I'm no watch expert just a low tier watch fan. I find in house movement to be a more of a luxury thing ala Rolex, Omega and high tier players. Right now the competition is so harsh that I think is best for companies to stick to Seiko, Myiota, ETA movements. I think Zelos is doing it the right way with great build quality, great dials and small batches.

All Seikos have in house movements. Also the most integrated watch brand, meaning all parts are made by Seiko.

JJMM1983
·
Watchobsessive910

All Seikos have in house movements. Also the most integrated watch brand, meaning all parts are made by Seiko.

Brother don't get me started on Seiko, Orient or The Citizen watch group.

Inkitatus
·

OMEGA's lack of creativity? 🤣

For me they're the most innovative brand! Their new regulation system, coaxial, sonnarie, a-magnetic.... Head & shoulders above bought in movements IMHO

Seiko too, all in house. Never broken any Seiko but have killed two ETA's ( one in a bike accident and one overwound!)

However, two in-house movements I'd avoid in the future are Vostok and Yema, both fragile and inaccurate in my experience.

I prefer in house as I see those companies as "true" watchmakers, others with bought in ebauches I see as watch assemblers, which is why I've never owned any microbrands. ( Except the broken ETA Chris Ward from years ago)

But to each their own 👍🏻

doolittle
·

I speculate that there is a temptation for brands to design watches around the in-house movement(s) they have developed and not launch watches that would best require the use of outsourced movements. So there definitely is a danger of getting stuck in a rut.

Kind of depends on the brand and their resources, so think the example given of Nomos is a good case study.