Joined
·
1,190 Posts
In the past 2 years since 2010 there has been a lot of controversy in ETA's decision to slow down, and eventually halt sales of ebauche and sales of complete movements.
The Swatch Group will be allowed to provide fewer watch movements to its competitors as of January 1, 2012. - swissinfo
Swatch case: Extended ruling is latest twist in movement war
There are some who believe it is the Swatch groups greed, and abuse of power that drives the halting of movements. Why leave a business they control with an iron fist, 80% of swiss brands using ETA movements and pretty much the entire world dependent on Nivarox.
If we look at Swatch Group's history we see Hayek played a key role as CEO, and pretty much the man responsible for saving the Swiss industry we find that Hayek's ideas for ETA may have not been what it is today.
Hayek believed that ETA should not be dependent on any one supplier as to prevent production from halting (something which would be critical for the swiss industry's rise).
Nick Hayek (Jr.) had made a comment to Wall Street Journal:
Even what appears to be taking a jab at other manufacturers like Sellita/Soprod for using ETA's designs perhaps, however it is unclear:
This MONOPOLY is simply unsustainable in a global economy with China's and Japan (Seiko/Miyota) at the heels of Swiss horology.
You have the Chinese (Seagull and Hanzhou) able to clone and modify the 2824-2 and other ETA movements, all the while using money from revenue in watch sales and ebauche sales to fund in-house movements like Seagull's Moonphase ST25's and Beijing with a whole array of in-house movements including high end minute repeaters/tourbillons/perp. calendars and more.
While Seiko is simply playing quiet, and slowly but surely raking in more sales.
Now with ETA's plans to slow down sales, it will hurt smaller companies whom did not prepare as they will not be able to source movements as easily as before, specially with alternatives that have over a year in wait or are too scarce to source.
This move will also force many other larger companies to invest in in-house movements, or rethink their Swiss-made labels and succumb to buying Asian movements (Chinese or Japanese).
Whether this is good or bad for the Swiss industry it is unknown.
What is known however is there is an unprecedented opportunity for a maverick company to take up the monopoly that ETA is leaving behind willingly and pave a new wave of Swiss horology!
The Swatch Group will be allowed to provide fewer watch movements to its competitors as of January 1, 2012. - swissinfo
Swatch case: Extended ruling is latest twist in movement war
There are some who believe it is the Swatch groups greed, and abuse of power that drives the halting of movements. Why leave a business they control with an iron fist, 80% of swiss brands using ETA movements and pretty much the entire world dependent on Nivarox.
If we look at Swatch Group's history we see Hayek played a key role as CEO, and pretty much the man responsible for saving the Swiss industry we find that Hayek's ideas for ETA may have not been what it is today.
Hayek believed that ETA should not be dependent on any one supplier as to prevent production from halting (something which would be critical for the swiss industry's rise).
Nick Hayek (Jr.) had made a comment to Wall Street Journal:
By Nick Hayek Jr, sourced from Swissinfo.ch"We do not want to be a supermarket, forced to deliver to everyone whatever they want. The supermarket era is coming to an end," he told the Wall Street Journal.
By Ft.comThat means any reduction in Swatch Group's supplies has severe consequences. On the other hand, the company argues that it has become a "supermarket" - in the words of Nick Hayek, chief executive, vulnerable to the vagaries of competitors skittish about ordering but have avoided investing in their own manufacturing capacity.
Even what appears to be taking a jab at other manufacturers like Sellita/Soprod for using ETA's designs perhaps, however it is unclear:
What is clear however is for the past 2 decades the Swiss industry in the mid and low end has been darn stagnant. No changes to movements, or horological leaps. The same movement designs for the past 2-3 decades, whether they come in an ETA flavor, or a Sellita or Soprod flavor. There is simply no variety in the market.He feels it is high time other Swiss watch manufacturers step in to invest more in technology and innovation to produce watch micro-components. Swatch believes other manufacturers are not doing enough to upgrade their machinery and processes and therefore do not share risks.
This MONOPOLY is simply unsustainable in a global economy with China's and Japan (Seiko/Miyota) at the heels of Swiss horology.
You have the Chinese (Seagull and Hanzhou) able to clone and modify the 2824-2 and other ETA movements, all the while using money from revenue in watch sales and ebauche sales to fund in-house movements like Seagull's Moonphase ST25's and Beijing with a whole array of in-house movements including high end minute repeaters/tourbillons/perp. calendars and more.
While Seiko is simply playing quiet, and slowly but surely raking in more sales.
Now with ETA's plans to slow down sales, it will hurt smaller companies whom did not prepare as they will not be able to source movements as easily as before, specially with alternatives that have over a year in wait or are too scarce to source.
This move will also force many other larger companies to invest in in-house movements, or rethink their Swiss-made labels and succumb to buying Asian movements (Chinese or Japanese).
Whether this is good or bad for the Swiss industry it is unknown.
What is known however is there is an unprecedented opportunity for a maverick company to take up the monopoly that ETA is leaving behind willingly and pave a new wave of Swiss horology!