Clubhouse to Fanbase. (Progression?)

 

Initially, the idea of blogging appealed to me. I envisioned fostering a vibrant community, engaging in meaningful discussions, and gaining valuable insights from readers. However, after a decade of writing, the reality has been quite different. Instead of thoughtful commentary, I mostly received angry emails nitpicking punctuation or phrasing. Positive interactions were rare, often limited to people I already knew offline.

To be fair, I haven't always prioritized quality over quantity. Writing is a personal hobby, not a profession. My posts are more akin to a stream of consciousness than polished prose, so mistakes and typos are inevitable. While I occasionally make corrections, it's not a priority. This blog is more akin to a personal journal than a publication like The New Yorker.

As life got busier, I turned to audio apps like Discord for community interaction. It required less effort and offered more engaging conversations, primarily with gamers and tech enthusiasts—my preferred crowd. I didn't even own a cell phone for years, so mobile-only apps held little appeal.

During the COVID-19 era, with more time on my hands and a new smartphone, I decided to try Clubhouse after hearing about its impressive network. It felt like a podcast where you could interact with intelligent and accomplished individuals.Initially, Clubhouse lived up to the hype.

But over time, the platform's user base shifted. The once-vibrant community of thought leaders and innovators became diluted with a mix of personalities, including some with harmful intentions. While good conversations and humor still existed, they became less frequent.

The app's management exacerbated the problem with constant changes to the interface, often making it worse. This,combined with the influx of new users, led many long-time users to abandon Clubhouse. I, too, drastically reduced my usage.

The downfall of Clubhouse is a cautionary tale in app development and community management. Forced changes rarely yield the desired results. Organic growth and community-driven evolution are far more effective.

Clubhouse could have been a successful platform if it hadn't alienated its core user base through constant changes and mismanagement. It serves as a reminder that even with a promising start, a platform can falter without a clear vision and respect for its community.

I've mostly moved on, although I still occasionally check in to witness the ongoing saga. It's disappointing to lose touch with people who were solely on Clubhouse, but I've found solace in Fanbase, which seems to be a promising alternative.Many insightful individuals from Clubhouse have migrated there, and the community seems more focused and less prone to toxicity.

While I continue to blog and hope for a resurgence in long-form reading, the current social media landscape favors short-form content and quick engagement. Platforms like Fanbase and Twitter, with their micro-blogging models, seem to be thriving. It will be interesting to see how Clubhouse evolves, but for now, I'm exploring other avenues for meaningful online interactions.

Elliptical History and the Place of the Historian

    The odd thing about history, or anything one learns about, is the recursiveness of it all. The more you learn, the more questions you have, the more study and dissemination required. If one is motivated enough to seek such answers in any definable, empirical and useful way; then one must dive deeply and fully in order to gain applicable intellectual agency. Combining most if not all of the forms and features of liberal arts, defining history contextually is dependent on understanding the perspective and experiences of those of the era. The experiences and decisions of the people really make the difference. The people, the human condition, human experience; that is history. Technology, doctrine and governmental structure are auxiliary elements and forces. Providing the immutable boundaries of the past, though not wholly or contextually defining it. The eras and ages will be greatly redefined, in time, to accommodate new data and evidence. That is the beauty of history: its depth and fungibility within its empirical permanence. As we learn more, experience more as a people, history is altered. We are all part of it and impacted by it, history is, essentially and literally, what we make it and how it is subsequently interpreted. This goes as much for our modern and future generations, as it did for those we see below and behind us on the timeline of human evolution. We have developed colloquialism, epics and monuments to ourselves; our societies and our achievements: with the foresight that someone, will someday be peering in from the future to the past; utilizing the last standing bits of our present from which to gauge our empirical and greater historical worth -- measuring such against the whole human history.

    So as we look back: we must be careful to remember that history was, in fact and in scripture, mindfully shaped and altered by those who lived within it; with the knowledge and intention of creating a legacy, or caring for one. This is not to say that every action and event is a carefully crafted scenario with an intent to deceive, that there doesn’t exist raw and unfettered truth in ancient text, to suggest that each element is a member of a larger class of propaganda (though clearly evident), or to otherwise persuade one that historical allegories have no empirical worth; though this is an acknowledgement that facts and truth are not all that history contains. An acknowledgement that there are indeed solipsistic virtues, values and narratives peppered throughout historical pericope. And a further acknowledgement that we must be cognizant of context and motivation, above and beyond the facts laid out on the surface; in order to gain proper and useful insight. Like making tactical decisions within the “fog of war”; we must create and rely on moral and ethical boundaries, syllogisms, and a nonsolipsistic sense of personal and cultural detachment: in order to ethically and empirically weigh past events.

    Religion is essentially a construct of social and common law. Taking the nature of man and reforming them into a subclass of human, more able to live and work toward prolific culture in close proximity. Religion, in one form or another, has been instrumental in social life. Whether it be in the Ma’at of egypt and it provincial standard from which much of their personal and municipal laws and codes (as well as other civilizations and religions) were constructed; or be it, Christianity and Islam, in the Empire of Charlemagne and the progression of trade and education which resulted: religion, of some type and structure, has been a base on which many, if not all, empires have been built. As much as it pains me personally, we must admit the great and pervasive influence of the Christian church has had, specifically with in terms of Western Culture, in its many incarnations. Religion often lead to the formation of social structure, and the retention of the same. At each point in history there is an, however unique, approach to mysticism and/or spirituality as a means of connecting the mind and hearts of the populous to the goals and social construct demanded or needed at the time; as well as being used as an explanation of the perpetually unexplainable. We could, and often do, encapsulate this as nationalism; or compartmentalize it, with other separate and more specific facets of society and belief; though, religion, and more acutely belief: is certainly a pervasive construct -- and surely is, what has been, the central uniting factor throughout many -- if not, in some abstract way, all -- of the great civilizations of the West. Without “religion” (and transference of tradition in a larger and more mechanistic sense), neither Eastern or Western, culture or society would exist.

    There must be a starting point for law and order; an authority. As such, there must be a sense of, and mechanistic agency for: authority. Hence, we have religion, in its many forms and cultural abstractions. For reasons far to various and in depth to state here, the social structure needs an authority to have a moral base (likely the same path from which Hobbes arrives at the nature of man; and Machiavelli arrived at the importance of state facilitated education, structure and social-culture (ie. nationalism)). Whether that be “God”, “Science”, Humanism or fear through tyrannical rule: people need structure and defined set of values, to live together - “peaceably”. I think we would like to believe we are nondeterministic, rational beings; though I fear that is far less the case than most will ever be willing or able to admit. People can “worship” anything. I think it less important what they “worshiped”, but that they “worship” something. Providing a moral and ethical base from which life can be based, and policy and culture argued -- and ultimately progressed. Evidenced by the sheer amount and variation in religion; which basically have the same morality -- though they may disagree in procedure and petence, tradition and observances. There is not a particularly “significant” difference in any two religions one compares; more likely is there being several collisions of thoughts, ideals and practices; which, I think, speaks far more to how alike we are as a species; independent of geographical, social, or idolic influences.

    Food, however, is what actually takes us to the next plane of enlightenment. Provides the ability to foster: religion, social identity, nationalism, science, trade, education, etc. A stable and robust food source is central to settlement (among other, similar, geographic elements). Because it is central to life, food enables us to grow both literally and intellectually. Settlement precedes trade and supplements personal energy output with the collective. Trade is crucial to growth.

    Growth facilities industry, organically mandating education and common law. Education is central to social and intellectual progression. Settlement and education facilitate creativity and a move away from mysticism and theistic spirituality, not by choice but as a reflection of need and stage of cultural-development. Leading empires to a more humanistic view, progressing cultures into more emotive and representational art, normally progressing to an assertion of further personal and social rights. In each case, total enlightenment seems close at hand, at least to the less educated or historically versed among the observing populace. Then, as if scripted; through war, disease, revolt, economic disaster, or general social progression which culminates in reform (though usually through civil war): the reset button is hit. Progressing us to the next iteration of these same events. Sliding back into a rebuilding stage, where concepts and traditions are rebuilt through the acquisition of intellectual blocks of knowledge from the past-- just as society post Rome used the literal and figurative building blocks of the empire from which to build a new. And once again the journey starts where it left off. Delivering us back to the “dark ages” from which to climb out again, refreshed and recreated; reeducated and reaffirmed in belief.

Only through hermeneutics, ethical scholarship, and ethical politic: can we be delivered from the “evil” of man, of our “human nature”. There is no positive and definitive way from which to secure our future and avoid continually repeating our past: conceptually -- or literally, in the worst case. This is as much a theme of the movie “War Games” as it is within the epic of human history. We create and we destroy, only to recreate and declare our new foundations infallible, unassailable and indestructible. We continually learn the same lessons, only for another generation to recreate the same paradigm within a different context and set of ideals; whether they be geographically separate or simply separated by time. So I rationalize this as the job of the historian: to inform the future of our past. Through careful and precise dissemination of events, proper contextualization of the present, and the effect had on the present by the ancient and recent past: informing the future of the mistakes they are currently making and those they will undoubtedly recreate. The historian does this with hindsight, foresight and with the hope that the next iteration of the world will be better, more informed, less painful, and kinder than the last.

Articles are shit.

     Many articles, particularly in business and entertainment, seem to prioritize clickbait headlines and superficial content over substance. While some publications maintain high standards, many others appear to have abandoned rigorous journalism in favor of chasing trends and appealing to the lowest common denominator.

This trend is evident in the prevalence of articles that exaggerate scientific findings, draw questionable conclusions, or focus excessively on sensational topics like Donald Trump. Meanwhile, meaningful discussions and in-depth analysis are often overlooked.

The decline in the quality of online content is not limited to professional publications. Even on personal blogs and social media, many individuals seem more interested in expressing their opinions than engaging in thoughtful discourse. This is reflected in the frequent ad hominem attacks and knee-jerk reactions that dominate many online spaces.

This phenomenon isn't new. Jonathan Franzen's essay "The Reader in Exile" explored the decline of reading and the rise of superficial entertainment. The film "Idiocracy" satirized a future where intelligence and critical thinking are devalued.These warnings, however, seem to have gone largely unheeded.

The current political climate, with the potential return of Donald Trump to power, highlights the consequences of a society that prioritizes entertainment over education and critical thinking. Many individuals lack basic scientific knowledge and seem unwilling or unable to engage in reasoned debate.

While I'm not immune to making assumptions or overlooking information, I strive to base my opinions on evidence and logical reasoning. However, I'm often dismayed by the prevalence of individuals who confidently espouse opinions on complex issues without demonstrating a basic understanding of the underlying facts.

This is not limited to any particular political group; both progressives and conservatives are susceptible to this tendency.It's disheartening to see people who can't manage their own lives confidently dictating how society should function.

It's important to be critical of information we encounter, regardless of the source. We should strive to base our opinions on evidence and be willing to revise them when presented with new information. Only then can we hope to have meaningful conversations and make informed decisions about the issues that affect us all.

Gear stuff. (if you read) \ Cameras, 2023

(Picture mostly unrelated) 

It seems that most people, other than those specifically focused on photography, are using their phone as their “Primary Camera”.  Beyond the feel, which some are currently working on solving, there is the functionality that camera’s have which phones just cannot mimic.  

Regardless of the reasoning, if you are interested in buying a camera and you are not intending on spending the equivalent to a mortgage payment, here are some of my opinions and available options you may not have considered.  Whether this is for social media or other types of production, there is a huge amount of selection that is difficult to navigate and compare —which is likely why gear videos are so popular on YouTube these days.

Everyone is looking to spend the least but still be able to produce high quality content.

——

The current prices of the Fujifilm line have gone out of control (fairly recently), where cameras that were recently $250 to $600 have skyrocketed to $600 - $2500 based on popularity and lens selection. (Particularly the Fuji X system) If you are into the camera world, you likely have seen the rise in the Fuji camera’s and other compacts with viewfinders that, in whatever myriad of ways, mimic the Leica brand or have a similar form factor. Some, like Cannon, are actually developing in their area now with full frame offerings.  If you are thinking of buying a camera right now, I would suggest waiting a bit, or if you must, buying a lower end camera that can get you buy for the moment, as camera prices are currently falling more than many in the area would like to speak about.  While this is likely do to a drop in consumer pricing, I would predict these prices will continue to fall for the foreseeable future, at least into next year.  Not to mention, used gear is very much the way to go now if you are not in the high-end professional space, and even if you are, perhaps.  

——

Now you certainly are not going to get the level of detail as a Nikon Z9 with a common 10 year old camera, even a pro-body, but based on the compression of images on social media that is likely not as big a problem as your mind may make it out to be. For those just getting started, looking to do their own advertising or video media, or hobbyists: there exist a large selection just based on how fast the industry moves and how many previous pro-models exist on the used market.

I have a few reasons why I think this is true: 

1. You are not (as previously mentioned) going to have an issue with quality, most of the cameras in the last two decades can produce good to great work, particularly when we are speaking of lower priced (older) pro-gear. 
2. You can fix everything in post:  While you may not get great results out of camera, that are perfect, with AI noise reduction, Lightroom, Photoshop and other modern editing software and techniques —that is a fairly easy fix. 
3. The older glass available, due to the rise of mirrorless, gives you a look you would likely be trying to replicate in post, out-of-camera —diverging from the more sterile look of images coming from newer cameras and sensor technology. 

I am not going to go through all the options, go to DP Review (if it still exists)  if that is what you are looking for, I am just going to speak about what I have looked at, purchased and why —you can make your decisions from that.  Now keep in mind, I am working on a production company and need more cheap functional cameras than most, but I think if you are in the market for only one, these same reasonings for use-cases will apply to you at some level as well. 

—— 

Organized from Low End - High-end (more-or-less):  I have organized these choices from price to more pro function, 

DSLR’s: 

Cannon: 

Cannon 50D — all around, tough, smaller capable camera for a small budget.  Does video and has newer features, great color replication, look and capability for the cost — roughly $60-$80 at the time of writing, with a lens for $80-$120 depending on the lens, but kit lens from this series are pretty capable. 

Cannon 550D — Good Low light but not “weather sealed”, not a pro-body. 

Cannon 7D — all around, low budget, pro-body, good low light potential for the age of the camera, sensors 1.6 cropped, but fast camera with good video potential (Avengers and others have been filmed on it).  $150-$250

Cannon 7D Mark II  — sharper all around than the 7D, fast, good auto focus, about $300-$400 at the time of writing.  $300-500

Cannon 5D — Full Frame portrait camera, slow but great images, good if you are switching from film to digital, faster relatively.  Great image quality, excellent in everyday situations, not as much in low light but useable with skill.  $150-$250

Cannon 5D Mark II  — Full Frame (More Modern), fast for the time but not fast by modern standards, great image quality, good lowlight performance for these sensors, really tough camera, pro-body and weather sealed like the other full frame cannons of this era.  $250-$300

Cannon 5D Mark III —  Basically a better Mark II, better video and low light, a bit faster, more at the range of the 7D with full frame quality and editing options.  $500-$1200. 

Nikon: 

Nikon D700 - Pro model, great in low light, fast, tough camera.  Older but still very capable.  Other than the portrait color science I would put it above the Cannon Cameras for the year, which is tougher would probably fall to the cannons, nearly, but you will still get 500,000 to 1mil shutter count on these rigs.  $250-$500 

Nikon D7100 — Great sensor for low light, fast and small form factor Nikon for a pro-model.  Not as good of lens selection as Cannon, but you shouldn’t worry about that anyway.  $200-$500  

Nikon D3 - Great camera, great sensor, low light and for speed, not huge amount of megapixel count, but doesn’t matter, great images.  Super strong,  $250-$350

Mirrorless: 

Mirrorless is still somewhat expensive, but there are some reasonable options to consider if you are looking for a capable compact.  I have had the Sony A6000 - a6400, love those cameras —and I have tried the Cannon M50, great camera.  I, personally, own the RX1R II, purchased before the prices went up, not sure if it is worth it for the average person, but it is great to travel with (but buy lots of batteries).   Lenses for the RX1R are more expensive if you do not have other Sony Cameras, perhaps better to go with one of the FujiFilm fixed lens cameras or others in the X series. 

Cannon M50 - Great camera, small form factor, expensive, great quality, a bit sterile and over sharp. 

Sony a6000 - a6600, great cameras, not weather sealed other than the a6600 (I believe) but pretty rugged for the build.  Good option for traveling and occasional use.  $250 - $600 

——

Not going to get into the micro four thirds selections, you will have to take that task on yourself, just not my world, but I will link some of those with reviews that shoot these more regularly. 

Sony
RX1R II

https://www.sony.com/za/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx1rm2

RX1R II Professional Compact Camera with 35mm Sensor | DSC-RX1RM2 | Sony South Africa

Lets contextualize a few things: 

1. I am only really speaking to photo people here, and perhaps people that work with occasional video —as that is less my area, you will want to look up some of those specific articles/videos that are speaking specifically to “video people”, who are certainly a different bread.  However, you will likely find at least the 5D Mark II and 50D as suitable choices for video as well. 
2. All of these are not going to give you the quality and dynamic range of “modern cameras”, but you should know that already.  What they will provide you is work equal to that of professional work 10 years ago, which I would say, looking back, holds up. 
3. Most of these prices will likely stay about the same or go down, but in the short term these bodies/lens will hold their value quite well.

----

Understanding Camera Optics and Lenses.

Lenses are like the eyes of your camera. They determine what you see and how you see it. Just like how each person has a unique perspective on the world, every lens has its own unique characteristics and strengths.

Imagine you're standing in the middle of a crowded street, and you're trying to take a picture of a building across the way. You can use a wide-angle lens to capture the entire scene, including the people and cars in the foreground. Or, you can use a telephoto lens to zoom in on the building and isolate it from the surrounding distractions. Each lens will give you a different perspective, and it's up to you to decide which one is best for the moment.

It's like choosing a pair of glasses. Do you want the glasses that let you see everything in the room, or the ones that focus on the details? It depends on what you're trying to achieve. Just like how different glasses can give you a different view of the world, different lenses can give you a different view of the scene in front of you.

But lenses aren't just about perspective. They're also about capturing light. Think of it like a chef using different ingredients to create a dish. Just like how a chef needs to balance different flavors and textures to make a dish taste just right, photographers need to balance different aspects of light to make an image look just right.

The aperture is like the seasoning in a dish. You can add more or less seasoning depending on the taste you're going for. In the same way, you can adjust the aperture to control the amount of light that enters the lens. A wide aperture lets in more light, which is great for low-light situations, but it also creates a shallow depth of field. A narrow aperture lets in less light, which is great for bright situations, but it also creates a deep depth of field.

Shutter speed is like the heat in a dish. You can increase or decrease the heat to cook the dish faster or slower. In photography, you can increase or decrease the shutter speed to capture motion or freeze it. A fast shutter speed freezes motion, while a slow shutter speed creates motion blur.

ISO is like the texture of a dish. You can make it smooth or grainy depending on the style you're going for. In photography, you can increase or decrease the ISO to adjust the sensitivity of the sensor to light. A low ISO creates a smooth image, while a high ISO creates a grainy image.

But like any great chef, you need to balance these ingredients to create the perfect dish. You can't just add a bunch of seasoning and hope for the best. You need to taste as you go and adjust as needed. In photography, you need to experiment and adjust as you go to create the perfect image.

But no matter how great the ingredients are, you need the right tools to make it all work. Just like how a chef needs the right knives and pots and pans, a photographer needs the right lenses and camera bodies. But it's not just about having the best gear. It's about knowing how to use it to its fullest potential.

So, if you want to be a great photographer, you need to think like a chef. You need to balance different ingredients to create the perfect dish. You need to experiment and adjust as you go. And most importantly, you need to have fun and enjoy the process. Because at the end of the day, photography is about capturing moments and memories that will last a lifetime.

---

Why We Love Bad News

 

We really love bad news.  And not much else.  Or, is that what "they" would like us to believe? Notice that anytime you turn on the news you get bad news.  Not to say that there are not the odd, "puppy found" or "cat removed from tree" type stories, but, primarily, we get bad news: "guy killed wife", "black people rioting", "women scared to walk at night", "serial killer", etc. Is this really all that sells? And, is news that "sells" the news we really need to hear the most from? Short of the many sites that are focused on some niche subject mater, primarily, in my experience, we get bombarded with scare tactics and other oddities of the public --when most people and communities are doing just fine, lots of good things are happening and, most likely, the day to day is more boring and mundane than filled with action packed danger akin to a Hollywood movie. Also, I would rationalize that many "good things", positive things, are happening, regularly --at a higher frequency than those sensationalized stories. 

It's not as though I am the first to notice these things --everyone from comedians to social commentators to academics has stated as much.  George Carlin has many sets on manipulation of the public through the news --and often wrote bits that show peoples similarities and how few differences there truly are; Bill Hicks made similar claims, speaking about how the news didn't match his experience; Noam Chomsky wrote a book long ago that spoke about both the intentions behind and the methods with which the public is manipulated, and to what ends. Despite these informative viewpoints we continues, as a whole, to focus on the negative rather than demanding, from a consumer perspective, the positive and relatable news. Also, this would speak to the type of fictional television we are imbibing. CSI, Special Victims Unit, Serial Killer Documentaries, etc --all play on our seeming obsession with violence and the outliers in our communities, not the mean.  You are far more likely to be killed by a vending machine than a serial killer, but one does not see dramatized stories of the unfortunate vending machine killings or the, all more common, death by traffic accident --unless such are attached to some spiritual entity that abstracts the happenings from reality yet again. 

I think my point here, if I have one, is that "we" (operatively) need to make the conscious choice on what to take in, observe and construct our vision of reality on --and we do (as not to add to the trend and point out reality further). Whole services and applications have been created and frequented by folks that are trying to do just that.  I would love to see that happen more --for more of the outlying balanced media producers gain more traffic and more notoriety. And, again, there are a lot out there (I will leave some links bellow) but there are still more that could use the support and the links to their content to be more prevalent. There are a tremendous amount of authors that could use the traffic to help them rise above the fray a bit more, and to this point: there are many types of artists that we need to take more effort to ignore. Let this not mean that everyone successful is therefore a "sell out" and not worthy of being listened to or supported --just that most that come from large brands are and should be treated as such. Almost so much as generally, it being a good rule, that if someone has not separated from a large corporation that produces their content; or, they did not start from "grassroots" (to whatever extant) we should be more critical, at least, and likely avoid wasting the time all together. 

Contrary to my own feelings I have recently spent a bit of time listening to tracks from "popular" artists --confirming my feelings that most of them leave much to be desired, even those that were more niche in their beginnings. Now let me confirm to you that I have not done a double-blind, formalized study of these aforementioned phenomena.  So lodge firmly in your brain that I could very well be full-of-shit and these plastic-y artist are really just popular because they are the "best at their craft" or otherwise fit some important cultural narrative. But I am willing to bet that the truth is closer to: "They are shit!"; "Goat Boy"; etc. --than "Corperate entities have good taste, all-of-a-sudden." Ultimately, do what you want --but I think it better to support the few among us that have real talent. "Buy the best item", in other words, it will last longer; do the best thing, not that which is most expedient, it pays in the end; support the small business, they care about you, the corporation --not so much.    

Space X

Space X, founded by entrepreneur Elon Musk in 2002, has made great strides in the commercialization of space exploration and satellite technology. The company's goal is to make space travel accessible to more people, and to establish a permanent, self-sustaining human presence on Mars.

One of Space X's most notable achievements is the development of reusable rockets. Traditional rockets are used only once and discarded after their mission is complete, making space travel incredibly expensive. Space X's Falcon series of rockets, however, are designed to be used multiple times, making space travel more affordable and sustainable.

In addition to its reusable rockets, Space X has also developed the Dragon spacecraft, which is capable of carrying both cargo and crew to the International Space Station. This marks a significant shift towards the commercialization of human spaceflight, as it allows private companies to take on tasks previously only performed by governments.

One of Space X's most ambitious projects is its plan to provide global internet coverage using a network of satellites. Known as Starlink, this project aims to provide high-speed, low-latency internet access to even the most remote areas of the world. The project has already launched over 1,000 satellites into orbit, with plans to launch thousands more in the coming years.

However, the deployment of such a large number of satellites has raised concerns among astronomers and scientists, as the satellites may interfere with observations of the night sky. Space X has promised to take measures to mitigate these concerns, such as painting the satellites a darker color and adjusting their orbits, but the impact on astronomical observations is still uncertain.

Despite these challenges, the future of satellite technology and internet coverage is incredibly promising. Space X's efforts, along with those of other companies, have the potential to revolutionize the way we access information and communicate with one another.

The development of reusable rockets and the commercialization of human spaceflight are also significant steps towards making space travel more accessible. Space X's plans to establish a human settlement on Mars are particularly exciting, as they mark a new era of space exploration and the possibilities for humanity to expand beyond our home planet.

Overall, Space X's achievements and plans for the future are incredibly inspiring. The company's work has the potential to change the world in ways we cannot yet imagine, and we can expect to see even more exciting developments in the coming years.

Watch Industry

The watch industry is no stranger to evolution — over the last Century elements of design, manufacturing, and marketing have continuously been refined to keep up with new trends and technological developments. I have a unique perspective to share on the evolution of the watch industry over time, how it has impacted prices, and what we can expect for the future. 

The watch-making industry has been around for hundreds of years, but it was in the 1950s when the modern era of wristwatches first emerged. Prior to this, pocket watches were the most common form of timekeeping instrument, either worn on the body or held in the pocket.

It was during the 1950s that automatic watch production first got its start, with brands such as Rolex, Omega, and Hamilton pioneering the market. This era also saw a rise in popularity of the then relatively new quartz technology, which offered much more accurate timekeeping and led to the development of digital watches over the next few decades. In the early 2000s, smartwatches also hit the market, creating a new industry within watchmaking. 

These changes to technology and design have definitely had an effect on the price of a watch. In the 1950s the cost of the average wristwatch was around $30, whereas today the prices can range anywhere from $50 to $10,000 or more. This range of watches has to do with the variety of materials used and improved technology such as quartz and digital movements.

We can expect to see this trend of increasing quality and greater affordability continue over the coming years. The popularity of smartwatches will continue to be a driving force in development, and prices in this sector can be expected to become even lower with the development of more advanced technology. 

The future of watchmaking is an exciting one — one filled with possibilities and developments. To stay ahead of the competition, watchmakers must look to push design and technology forward. I believe that as technology and design go hand in hand, watchmakers will continue to strive to create new, innovative products that provide luxuriousness and functionality that stand out in the market. It is also safe to assume that prices of watches will become even more competitive as technology advances and more watchmakers enter the industry. 

The watch industry has come a long way since the 1950s, and there is exciting potential for what the future holds. For brands to thrive, they must continue to innovate, create, and improve upon what is currently available. It is clear that the history of the watchmaking industry will define the future, and avid watch lovers like myself can’t wait to see what the next decade brings.