I admit using the car industry analogy is not perfect. However, I was trying illustrate a different point.
Anyway, may I ask why you feel IWC has neglected to develop basic models like Ingenieurs, Pilots and Aquatimers? I also want to know whether you are more concerned about IWC’s “seemingly lack of” focus on improving the so-called basic models, or as you mentioned in another paragraph, IWC not introducing more advanced products and technologies when compared with its major competitors?
As I look back in IWC recent history, I noticed that every year or so IWC would revamp a series of watches. Along with revising the line, new movements and features are also introduced. While I am not sure whether these improvements are “enhancing basic models enough,” or introducing “enough advanced technologies,” I do see them as improvements.
Movements alone, IWC under the leadership of Mr. Kern (OK, I am sure these aren’t just his ideas or contributions alone… but at least they happened in Kern’s time) have introduced digital date perpetual calendar for the Da Vinci series, successfully given us a relatively affordable flyback chronograph movement with 68-day power reserve, mono-pusher for Portofino chrono, siderale scafusia for the Portugieser, double-barrel 7-day movement, constant-force tourbillon for the Ingenieur, latest perpetual+chrono movement for the latest Da Vinci, revamped many of their movements with ceramic bearing, etc. etc. Some newer technologies are expensive yet nice, and some are just minor improvements on durability and functionality—but hey, at least they are not just focusing on serving the higher end or mass market of customers. Both get some innovations!
Watch features on the other hand, I could see Ingenieur experiencing with different materials (and not only for the watch, also for the straps), Aquatimer introducing lume in its external bezel, then keeping the external bezel, but making it bi-directionally turnable while just rotating the internal indicator ring uni-directionally for diving safety, not to mention Pilot Timezoner time-zone easily-adjustable feature (OK, I admit this is through M&A, not IWC’s own R&D, but it is an innovation nonetheless), and the rotate-able lugs of the new Da Vinci, etc. etc. These are advancements that even the more “entry-level” users could enjoy. Not only that, but they are practical features that people could actually use, not just fancy enhancements. (Isn’t this what IWC has been known for all along—bringing advancement in an elegant way to its customers at a rather affordable price? I happen to think IWC continues to live up to this promise, at least somewhat)
Perhaps I’m just too easily satisfied, but in my book, I see these as IWC’s recent advancements. Yes, IWC is a bit late to introduce a micro-length-adjustable bracelet, and their movements tend to be too big and too thick… but hey, at least they are making improvements in these areas.
May I turn the table and humbly ask what have IWC’s major competitions bring to us in recent years that are ground-breaking? Yes, Rolex finally gives us a watch with moonphase. Yeah! How about Zenith? Any major technological advancement since the introduction of El Primero movement? True, Omega has co-axial movement and a-magnetic coil—and then what else, please? Let’s not forget co-axial escapement was not even an Omega’s own invention.
Yes, H. Moser & Cie, Richard Mille, A Lange & Sohne, etc. arguably have given the industry a lot more innovations in recent years. However, they are not really in the same league as IWC.
I don’t know, like I said, maybe I am just a happy customer that can easily be satisfied. I certainly have no big complaints on IWC under Kern’s leadership. Sure, Kern is different from Günter Blümlein. Nonetheless, I think the environment and challenges are different. Besides, if Kern is no Blümlein, that doesn’t necessarily mean he was a bad leader.
I understand we all love the brand, and want it to do well. Sometimes the directions it has taken may deviate from our wish. Is that necessarily a bad thing though? I think IWC as a company has a lot to consider, and balances to strike. To me, I simply appreciate what Kern has been through, and the watches that IWC has put out--and that's why I still keep buying.
Just my 2c worth.
