Beta
×

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

How Apple Watch Is Really a Regression In Watchmaking

timothy posted about two weeks ago | from the maybe-they-could-merge-with-timex dept.

Power 415

Nerval's Lobster writes Apple design chief Jony Ive has spent the past several weeks talking up how the Apple Watch is an evolution on many of the principles that guided the evolution of timepieces over the past several hundred years. But the need to recharge the device on a nightly basis, now confirmed by Apple CEO Tim Cook, is a throwback to ye olden days, when a lady or gentleman needed to keep winding her or his pocket-watch in order to keep it running. Watch batteries were supposed to bring "winding" to a decisive end, except for that subset of people who insist on carrying around a mechanical timepiece. But with Apple Watch's requirement that the user constantly monitor its energy, what's old is new again. Will millions of people really want to charge and fuss with their watch at least once a day?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How big a fuss is it, really? (5, Informative)

daemonhunter (968210) | about two weeks ago | (#48271887)

I take my watch off at the end of the day. I put it on in the morning. How big a difference is it to set it "on a charger on my nightstand", instead of just "on my nightstand?"

Much ado about nothing.

Re:How big a fuss is it, really? (4, Insightful)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about two weeks ago | (#48271963)

Years ago, when I wore watches, they had to be waterproof because I never took them off. One less thing to have to f' with in the morning.

Re:How big a fuss is it, really? (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about two weeks ago | (#48271973)

I don't take my watch off at the end of the day. I only ever take it off to shower. Hell, I keep it on in the ocean.

Re:How big a fuss is it, really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48271975)

It's a big enough fuss that people stopped using mechanical watches in the first place.

Re:How big a fuss is it, really? (4, Interesting)

Wycliffe (116160) | about two weeks ago | (#48272209)

It's a big enough fuss that people stopped using mechanical watches in the first place.

People stopped using mechanical watches because other watches were better. Also many
high quality mechanical watches self-wind as long as you wear them. Not wearing them
is actually a problem. They actually sell special cases to wind mechanical watches when
not in use: http://www.rakuten.com/prod/4-... [rakuten.com]

If the apple watch is better (in any sense of the word) then it has a chance. The only problem
I see with nightly charging is that (at least with smart phones), that usually means that
heavy users have to charge midday which IS a pain.

Re:How big a fuss is it, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272433)

People stopped using mechanical watches because other watches were better.

^This. The history of the quartz watch is an interesting read. At first they were considered a niche market (or even a joke), not to be taken seriously by the established (especially Swiss) watch industry.

The early 60s quartz models were already accurate to within a dozen seconds a month, while even a modern mechanical (non-chronometer) watch today will be off 5-10 seconds per day. I love my 75-150 year old pocket watches and carry one daily, but it's out of nostalgia and a love of mechanical devices, not convenience or accuracy.

Re:How big a fuss is it, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272255)

When alternatives came around. When a kinetic charged Apple Watch becomes available people will start using them instead. They didn't abandon mechanical watches until alternatives came out, they did it because they did.

Re:How big a fuss is it, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272179)

I never take my watch off. It's waterproof, always on, and I always know what time it is. Date and month are convenient too. Hiking the altimeter is a nice touch.

All these people that decided smart phones can be their watch ? I am constantly asked the time, playing sports, at the gym, in any water situation, etc. I get asked for the time at least 10 times a day.

I will keep my relatively cheap waterproof always on time keeper. That some jackass in KL or Colombia (hell, even SEATTLE these days) isn't going to stab me for.

Re:How big a fuss is it, really? (2)

Beriaru (954082) | about two weeks ago | (#48272211)

I have a mechanical, automatic, waterproof watch.

Other than adjust the time once a week, I don't have to take it off. I like my wearables to be old school.

Re:How big a fuss is it, really? (2)

MouseR (3264) | about two weeks ago | (#48272251)

On my 15th work anniversary at my current employer, I was awarded a Blue Angel edition Citizen Skyhawk watch. It's got an EcoDrive invisible solar cell under the watch face. Never hard to recharge it. Never lost a minute. Never worn a watch since I was 18 (I kept loosing them) but nowadays feel like I'm missing something if I dont have that watch when I go out.

The Apple Watch thing is kinda dreadful in design but that's subjective.

The real let down is the charging thing. I long ago ran out of power outlets around my bed and there's no way I'd have another dangling wire on the table.

At the very least, it needs an inline charger to share the same iPhone wire. Serialized or parallel. Or a dual function charge pod.

Since this thing required an iPhone, there's no point in requiring a different charger.

Re:How big a fuss is it, really? (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about two weeks ago | (#48272275)

How big a difference is it to set it "on a charger on my nightstand", instead of just "on my nightstand?"

That's fine as long as the watch doesn't track your sleep. I had a Basis smart watch, and having to take it off to charge it daily was a definite shortcoming. For a watch w/o sleep tracking, your solution is fine.

Re:How big a fuss is it, really? (1)

Krojack (575051) | about two weeks ago | (#48272429)

I sleep with mine on because it also tracks movement in my sleep. I find it generally handy.

cell phones and notepads (4, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | about two weeks ago | (#48272435)

Analogously, cell phones are a throwback to old crank phones because you have to charge them before you use them. We used to have perfectly good powered land lines. Cell phones with their short battery lives and constant attention are for eclectic hobbyists I'm sure.

And don't get me started about notepads when a paper and pencil pad can store your information for a century or more with no format changes impairing data retreival. current ipads are the equivalent of undecipherable babelonian cuniform clay tablets. Ludicrous anyone would want to go back to such fragile formats for information storage

I really don't understand smart watches... (3, Interesting)

Hammeh (2481572) | about two weeks ago | (#48271889)

Has there been some change over recent years that has made phones hard to get out of your pocket? Why would you want to do anything on such a tiny screen when a bigger one is within reach almost 100% of the time?

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48271923)

Running, for one. Not having to carry a phone is useful. Yes, there are hundreds of fitness trackers. Why not a multi-purpose tracker that also lets me reply to the wife?

Getting updates without looking like a phone zombie is useful for some scenarios.

There are reasons.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (4, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about two weeks ago | (#48272023)

Running, for one. Not having to carry a phone is useful. Yes, there are hundreds of fitness trackers. Why not a multi-purpose tracker that also lets me reply to the wife?

You still have to have the phone on you. The watch talks to the phone.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about two weeks ago | (#48272185)

Running, for one. Not having to carry a phone is useful. Yes, there are hundreds of fitness trackers. Why not a multi-purpose tracker that also lets me reply to the wife?

You still have to have the phone on you. The watch talks to the phone.

That's right. So I got an arm strap for my phone. Don't need yet another gadget. $20 vs. whatever Apple is gouging the rubes for this time.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (3, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about two weeks ago | (#48272291)

That sounds like a design flaw in the specific smartwatch as opposed to a problem with the utility of such devices in general.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272303)

sure, if you need it talk to it while running, but my wife already had an arm band for her phone, the problem was she could really change the music easily, now its not a problem, and since she doesnt need notification while working out or whatever, she just loads some music on the watch and pairs her bluetooth headset with it, so she doesnt really even need the phone while she working out, well with the moto360 at least. not sure what the apple watch has for storage but the 360 is about 4 gigs, so she jsut transfers a some music over the night before (because bluetooth file transfer is slow and will eat up your battery she does this the night before so it charged the next day (and btw by eat the battery i mean she was at 50% at like 8:30pm after using it all day and then transferring a bunch of music))

So no you don't necessarily need to have your phone with you.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272079)

For that watch to work correctly you need the phone...

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | about two weeks ago | (#48272259)

Running, for one. Not having to carry a phone is useful. Yes, there are hundreds of fitness trackers. Why not a multi-purpose tracker that also lets me reply to the wife?

Unfortunately as other people have pointed out, you do need to carry the phone. Which has already killed the Apple Watch for one runner I know. She was really excited about the idea of being able to leave the phone at home while running while still having access to things like a GPS logger and her calendar.

Then I pointed out that would only work if she only ran in like a 40 foot bubble around her phone. (And that we don't know what happens without the phone and what the range really is.) The discovery that the watch doesn't have a GPS in it basically killed her interest in it. If she has to carry the phone anyway, why bother with the watch?

But you're right, if the Apple Watch was basically a tiny phone you could use from your wrist without requiring you to also be carrying the phone, that could be a great product for runners. Hell, if it had a GPS and just synced via your phone while it was in range, that would probably be "good enough" for a ton of runners.

As it is, its dependence on the iPhone for GPS and the fact that we don't know exactly how well it degrades without the phone basically kills its usefulness for runners.

And, of course, for those of us who don't go running and instead spend all our time sitting on our fat asses, I still haven't figured out a reason why we'd want an Apple Watch.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272373)

For running, there are several alternatives. The Garmin one would work, as would the FitBit Surge or the Microsoft Band. All of those have GPS to track running. I know you mentioned calendar - I don't think any of them have this, especially when not in range of the phone. But certainly there are solutions that do handle the running without a phone scenario. They just don't have Apple in the name.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (2)

itzly (3699663) | about two weeks ago | (#48272305)

You can run without a phone, you know. Many Ethiopians run without phones, and they're winning marathons.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (2)

Triklyn (2455072) | about two weeks ago | (#48272431)

yeah, but running is boring, and even the ethiopians have lions.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (1)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about two weeks ago | (#48272063)

skinny jeans

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about two weeks ago | (#48272067)

Here are 5 reasons off the top of my head.

1) You are trying to be discrete - at a dinner party, dancing, on a date, etc. etc.

2) You want something that can track your blood glucose, heart rate, uric acid, etc.

3) You are a hot woman, your dress doesn't have pockets, and the perfect little purse matches the dress but barely holds your make up.

4) You are missing the fingers on one hand - you can't hold your phone in one hand and touch the surface with the other, but you can strap it to your bad wrist and touch it with your good fingers.

5) You have class and style. You want to look GOOD, and it makes for a nice accoutrement.

# 4 is rare. #3 affects half the population of the world. # 1, 2, and 5 apply to pretty much everyone.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about two weeks ago | (#48272113)

1) You are trying to be discrete

I wouldn't recommend that. Being discrete is extremely painful, and usually leads to fatal blood loss.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (1)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about two weeks ago | (#48272157)

5) You can have class and style and look a hell of a lot better for a lot less money. You just won't look like a trendy fanboi.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (3, Insightful)

pnutjam (523990) | about two weeks ago | (#48272165)

Smart watches fail on look good and discrete. They look gaudy and are designed to catch others eyes so they know how cool you are.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (1)

itzly (3699663) | about two weeks ago | (#48272237)

4) You are missing the fingers on one hand

And what if you miss your wrist ?

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272243)

You think half the population of the world are hot women ??

#1 is just plain rude. Pay attention to what's going on around you. If it sucks, leave. If you must go communicate, "go use the bathroom" like everyone else. Give people your undivided attention, or just don't bother being there.

#2 is just completely unnecessary for 99% of people. They are healthy, just watch your diet, not your watch. The other 1% should have real medical devices.

#5 - true. Go nuts, fashionistas.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (1)

jythie (914043) | about two weeks ago | (#48272371)

You would be surprised what tracking blood sugar for non-diabetics can do for your quality of life. It is not something 'needed', but low blood sugar can have subtle effects on mood that one might not be able to identify easily at the time. It is one of those odd internal things that can be the cause of things but is not immediatly obvious.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (1)

timmyf2371 (586051) | about two weeks ago | (#48272447)

Sometimes attendance at an event is mandatory, even though undesirable. Company-wide briefings by Senior Managers, for example. I don't mind checking a notification discretely on my Pebble, but I would never pull my phone out and make it obvious.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272363)

#3 The watch talks to the phone, you still need it on you.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (1)

jythie (914043) | about two weeks ago | (#48272323)

One could ask the same of any number of small devices which can have their functionality duplicated by a smartphone. One example that has maintained some popularity would be the iPod nano which is great for things like exercise, yard-work, cleaning, carpentry, etc. Sure you can have a smart phone sitting in your pocket (assuming you are dressed in such a way that you HAVE pockets) but something smaller and less intrusive can be nice, esp when one is doing a task where they are not going to be answering phone calls anyway.

Re:I really don't understand smart watches... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272325)

Have you seen the iPhone 6+? Definitely more difficult to get out of your pocket. (If you can actually get it in there in the first place)

Or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48271901)

Or even wear a watch?

Until somebody discovers a better battery! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48271907)

Until somebody discovers a better battery!

Better question: (2, Insightful)

Scottingham (2036128) | about two weeks ago | (#48271909)

Will millions give a shit about an overpriced nerdlinger status symbol? Stay tuned as Bennett whateverhisface submits his thesis.

Re:Better question: (3, Insightful)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about two weeks ago | (#48272017)

Nerdlinger? Nothing nerdy about this device. A nerdy device would have an expansion port and, possibly, an open chip socket. The OS would be definitely be user-flashable. This is a wanna-be device all the way. Remember, real nerds play First Edition rules. :)

Re:Better question: (3, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | about two weeks ago | (#48272249)

Real nerds don't call it "First Edition."

There was only one edition. Any assertion to the contrary will be vigorously ignored.

Re:Better question: (1)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about two weeks ago | (#48272381)

You might have me there, but when looking to replace a lost copy of the DMG, one has to be VERY specific. :)

Re:Better question: (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about two weeks ago | (#48272149)

They call it a watch, but its not really a watch.

Even Before Watch Sized Batteries.... (2)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about two weeks ago | (#48271927)

there were self winding watches.

Re:Even Before Watch Sized Batteries.... (2)

SpannerX (989422) | about two weeks ago | (#48272099)

Hell, there still are. The Seiko 5 series, for example, is still very popular. My current daily wear is solar powered and self correcting (Citizen Skyhawk).

Are Apple watches the only ones? (2)

dablow (3670865) | about two weeks ago | (#48271929)

Do none of the other smart watches require to be charged? How is this a problem restricted to Apple?

Re:Are Apple watches the only ones? (4, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | about two weeks ago | (#48272043)

Do none of the other smart watches require to be charged?

How is this a problem restricted to Apple?

Because the Apple Watch is the only one that is expected to sell well. (Not because it's better, but because it's Apple.)

It's APPLE. And it's GAY. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48271931)

What more could a fanboi want?

Re:It's APPLE. And it's GAY. (1)

zieroh (307208) | about two weeks ago | (#48272041)

What more could a fanboi want?

Replies such as this make you look foolish, and do nothing at all to tarnish the reputation of those you target. Another thing: rarely has "Anonymous Coward" been so appropriate.

Re:It's APPLE. And it's GAY. (1)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | about two weeks ago | (#48272287)

We do have to come up with a better word than "GAY" to describe things that are unnecessarily frilly, froofy and effeminate. How people love really has nothing to do with it.

I thought Apple was innovative (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about two weeks ago | (#48271937)

How come this thing doesn't run off body heat, or have a mechanical generator in the same fashion of the old self winding watch? which was extremely reliable by the way. A tritium backlit display would be really cool.

Re:I thought Apple was innovative (1)

pecosdave (536896) | about two weeks ago | (#48272103)

Go old-school - Radium!

Re:I thought Apple was innovative (1)

swb (14022) | about two weeks ago | (#48272127)

Go new school -- Strontium-90! And then it won't need charging.

Re:I thought Apple was innovative (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272115)

They need to wait for someone else to invent it first, then they can copy it...errr "innovate" it into their products.

I thought Apple was innovative (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272189)

They can't put all those features in the version 1. Wait for the Apple Watch 3S coming out in 2020.

Automatic watches (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about two weeks ago | (#48271949)

>> Watch batteries were supposed to bring "winding" to a decisive end

Someone has never heard of the automatic (aka self-winding) watch. I realize that the concept has only been around since the 18th century, but really, it's pretty well known.

Re:Automatic watches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272093)

>> Watch batteries were supposed to bring "winding" to a decisive end

Someone has never heard of the automatic (aka self-winding) watch. I realize that the concept has only been around since the 18th century, but really, it's pretty well known.

The amount of energy needed to run a smartwatch is several orders of magnitude higher than what a mechanical watch uses (even with a self winding mechanism). In other words unless there is a revolution in battery technology your smartwatch is going to be dumber than a dumb mechanical self winding watch for the forseable future.

Automatic watches (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272155)

Most automatic watches have power reserve for a day or two. You must move your hands to charge it or use external winder. Self winding is a misnomer. Batteries can keep it charged for years. Other option is solar charging (this is what I am using but that too uses batteries for reserve) or heat gradient charging (which most people haven't really heard of since it used to cost fortune and very few were ever produced).

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48271951)

I wound my watch as a kid. I wouldn't call the 80s ye olden days . . .

Do you charge your phone every day? (5, Informative)

mveloso (325617) | about two weeks ago | (#48271955)

Back in the day, you didn't need to charge your phone every day. Now you do. Big deal?

Re:Do you charge your phone every day? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272231)

I charge my phone maybe once a week. It's an older Android (Gingerbread).

Re:Do you charge your phone every day? (1)

jythie (914043) | about two weeks ago | (#48272397)

Which is kinda the point, many people have gotten used to the idea of needing to charge their phone every single day and do not think much of it when not too long ago a phone could hold a charge for few weeks at a time.

Re:Do you charge your phone every day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272321)

Yes, it's terrible. If you gave me the option to buy a phone with a battery life of 4 years (like my watch), I would buy that in a heartbeat. I creamed myself just writing that.

Re:Do you charge your phone every day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272339)

Nope. And until I can go more than 2 days without charging, I'm not "upgrading" either.

Re:Do you charge your phone every day? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272361)

Actually, the need to charge the phone so often is one of the things keeping me on a 'dumb phone'.

Re:Do you charge your phone every day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272421)

Yup, and it has become the single biggest pain in the ass about having a phone.

Ok, so one feature, in isolation, is a step back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48271959)

...how does that make the entire watch a regression in watchmaking?

That's like if a new Tesla were to be released, now with the ability to leave the atmosphere and break orbit, but it requires fuel to do so, and you sat there shaking your head about what a regression it was in car making.

Bleh (3, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about two weeks ago | (#48271965)

Bleh

This "article" could have just been jammed in the summary, hell Bennett writes larger blog posts in the summary all the time! I can also honestly say I thought to myself "well this is really lame" before noticing it was a shameless dice self post.

I hate apple and have no interest in a "smart watch", but having to charge the damn thing all the time is a well understood problem, something which is weighed as a con vs whatever pros people find in these things. If I had any interest in the features, I doubt this would be a show stopper. It just becomes a slight addition to the list of things I do before going to bed. If value of that effort exceeds the annoyance of that effort, then it's worth it?

This article doesn’t do anything besides point out the issue and make a fairly obvious correlation (something the author probably felt was way more clever than it actually was)?

Re:Bleh (4, Informative)

OzPeter (195038) | about two weeks ago | (#48272071)

This "article" could have just been jammed in the summary

Nerval = Dicevertisment

That says it all.

Re:Bleh (4, Informative)

Anrego (830717) | about two weeks ago | (#48272273)

Wow, I assumed you meant like he suspiciously makes a lot of dice related posts, but it's not even subtle.

Identified as "works for slashdot" and entire history seems to be nothing but dice.com posts. It's like this guys job is literally to post dice shit to slashdot all day.

Re:Bleh (2)

_xeno_ (155264) | about two weeks ago | (#48272351)

I'm pretty sure that is Nerval's Lobster's job. I really wish Slashdot would at least mention that the link is to a news site run by their parent company. I mean, they always used to when linking to things on SourceForge or ThinkGeek.

Sure, once you've been around here long enough, you'll learn that Nerval's Lobster == Dice news story and Bennett Haselton == verbal diarrhea, but it would be nice if the editors would at least pretend at being professional.

Don't wear a watch... (3, Informative)

itzly (3699663) | about two weeks ago | (#48271979)

Wearing a watch in itself is already "is a throwback to ye olden days". I haven't worn a watch in decades, and I see a lot of people without them. When I need to see the time, I can glance at the corner of the computer screen, or check my phone.

Re: Don't wear a watch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272343)

"check my phone"

Like a pocketwatch, but instead of being made of silver or gold, its plastic.

Stupid (1)

trevc (1471197) | about two weeks ago | (#48271987)

What a stupid article. Don't you have something more important to worry about? I used to have to wind my watch every day. What's the big deal?? I had a Pebble and I had to charge it almost every day. No biggie.

Crappy Product (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48271999)

No one WANTS to charge their freakin' watch every day. But they will. The hordes will buy it because it is Apple. It will be an inconvenient product, but its trendiness and Apple logo will overcome all common sense and logical thought.

Re:Crappy Product (1)

kick6 (1081615) | about two weeks ago | (#48272203)

At least in the sphere of watches, apples crap will be on the low end of price.


Source: I'm trying to decide between a $500 watch or a $3000 watch because one says "omega" on it, and one doesn't.

I don't know about millions of people (1)

GlennC (96879) | about two weeks ago | (#48272025)

I, for one, am not interested in having to ensure my watch is plugged in nightly. I may not be Apple's target demographic, though.

Re:I don't know about millions of people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272367)

They don't need to be plugged in; just placed on a charging pad beside the bed.

That said, I would have liked to see a few energy reclamation technologies integrated into Apple's watch; solar cells, thermal charging, "self-winding" style charging (they've already got the gyros etc... why not use them to power the device?).

Using all these technologies alongside the current tech probably would have resulted in a watch that could last a week instead of a day. Of course, I have no idea how they'd fit it all into the already-clunky form factor they chose.

I'll call you a... (1)

MikeDataLink (536925) | about two weeks ago | (#48272027)

Whhhaaaaaaaambulance!

Seriously? We have to charge our phone nightly in most cases. Is it really a big deal charge your watch too? Put them both on the nightstand side by side.

Re:I'll call you a... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272195)

Whhhaaaaaaaambulance!

Seriously? We have to charge our phone nightly in most cases. Is it really a big deal charge your watch too? Put them both on the nightstand side by side.

New Casio quartz models can go 7 fucking years on a single battery. I mean the G-Shock series full of features.
I love gadgets, but smartwatches are stupid gadgets. Not as versatile as a smartphones and fucking worse than a watch wether it be a mechanical watch or a digital quartz watch.

Depends on what they want it for (1)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272047)

Will millions of people really want to charge and fuss with their watch at least once a day?

A fair few people stopped really using watches when smartphones took off [xkcd.com] . If they want a watch primarily as a timepiece then yeah, "dumb" watches are less hassle, but if a person likes the non-time functions of a smartwatch then maybe the daily charge isn't so bad. Just because it is on your wrist doesn't mean it should be judged entirely as a timepiece, so comparing the time between "charges" to a ye olde watch maybe isn't the best comparison.

just like cell phones (2, Insightful)

j2.718ff (2441884) | about two weeks ago | (#48272051)

My old Nokia could go a week between charges. Yet I have to recharge my Android phone daily. Yup, it's a horrible regression in battery life. And in exchange, all I got are a ton of features that I use all the time. Oh, and my old rotary phone didn't require charging ever. Heck, it didn't even need to be connected to my household power.

Smart watches are no different. They have their pros and their cons.

Ummmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272077)

What's a watch?

You can keep your Apple Watch, (1)

pecosdave (536896) | about two weeks ago | (#48272085)

I bought my Casio in 2005, it's solar rechargeable. I've worn it daily with the original batter every since I bought it, never a problem and the time is always right. I'm too utilitarian to want something that needs constant attention. Maybe it comes from being a tech, I get tired of fixing problems and see no reason to generate them.

Great watch. [watchuseek.com]

Landline vs cell phone once again (2, Insightful)

u19925 (613350) | about two weeks ago | (#48272091)

You don't need to charge your landline phone (except wireless) but you pretty much need to charge your cell phone daily or at least weekly. How many people would like to go back to landline? Apple watch has similar physical dimensions as regular watch and they both show times. Similarities end there. The apple watch can do many more things that regular watch cannot and it needs battery for those functions. If you are happy with what your watch does, ignore apple watch (I am going to do that), but many folks may like to have one.

Nano (1)

Eosi (3781645) | about two weeks ago | (#48272109)

Thought that Apple put out a Nano that could be used as a large watch years ago. Just had to get a third party band for it.

Telephones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272111)

The voice quality on cellphones is a throwback to ye olden days. Will people really want to struggle to hear each other with these new cellphone devices?

I look at my watch all the time (1)

SpannerX (989422) | about two weeks ago | (#48272125)

But I'm on a 15 minute schedule so taking my phone out of my pocket and looking at it all the time would be a pain in the ass.

My two cents (1)

Eric Bacus (2942717) | about two weeks ago | (#48272151)

I received a Pebble as a wedding gift, and I was reluctant as to whether or not I'd like it...I now wear it every single day, and feel naked when it's not with me. The benefit of an "always-at-a-glance" notification system can't be overstated. Granted, the battery life is such that I only need to recharge it a few times a week. While the prospect of charging my watch every night would be a step down for me, I'm already in the habit of charging my smartphone every night, so my evening routine wouldn't change all that much... Given the aforementioned benefits, I wouldn't consider the nightly charge a dealbreaker whatsoever. I think this is a "Don't knock it til you try it." situation.

Are clocks on phones really a step back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272169)

In the early days of watches there were no wrist straps. Pocket watches were all that we had unless you count Big Ben! The wristwatch ended the reign of the pocket watch once as for all, or so we thought. Will people really stop wearing watches just because they have a clock on their phone?

Re:Are clocks on phones really a step back? (1)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about two weeks ago | (#48272337)

>The wristwatch ended the reign of the pocket watch once as for all, or so we thought.

Good point, and I'm very happy with my HTC One (M8) Pocket Watch +.

I've used a FitBit and a Basis smart watch, but I prefer to not have anything strapped to my wrists. I was OK with it for a few months, but at some point wearing these things got uncomfortable.

But it isn't a watch (1)

jtara (133429) | about two weeks ago | (#48272181)

See the subject line.

The Answer Is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272271)

The answer is "Yes" for those people that will buy the Apple Watch. These are people with money to burn on a time piece gadget and have the time and inclination to take care of it. If you want a watch that doesn't need charging every day there are tons of them out there. There will be only one Apple Watch. Get it? It's called marketing if you don't and if you want to discuss it in detail and critique product marketing in particular you should really learn something about it.

Nobody needs a Rolex. Nobody needs a Breitling. Nobody needs an Apple Watch. They want one because the devices are special and they have earned them through hard work. The same can be said of designer clothes that require dry cleaning. Why buy those things that need special care and cost more? Because they make you feel better about yourself and say something about your accomplishments.

This has been going on since human society existed. We always look for ways to differentiate ourselves from others. So what? If you have the money and the time to take care of something nice then why not. No, these things are not necessary, but how many things we use every day are truly necessary?

It's even worse than that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272295)

> "Watch batteries were supposed to bring winding to a decisive end, except for that subset of people who insist on carrying around a mechanical timepiece."

Self-winding mechanicals draw power from the motion of your wrist, & need winding only when left unworn for several days. So Apple is going back even earlier than that.

A mechanical self-powering engineering marvel on my wrist is more exciting than apple's gee-gaws IMHO.

It's been going backward.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272301)

My sundial never needed any recharging or battery replacement.

Confirms that Apple's strategy is correct (3, Informative)

Coward Anonymous (110649) | about two weeks ago | (#48272307)

Mechanical watches were so ridiculously convenient and useful that people would gladly wind their watches once a day. Similarly, if the Apple Watch proves convenient and useful, people will gladly charge it once a day.

Of course, the most myopic aspect of these articles is the unwritten presumption that today's state of the art will never improve. Yes, Apple Watch will need to be charged once a day for the next couple of years, but charge times are going to improve tremendously as Moore's Law continues to plug along. The Apple Watch will improve in a way analogous to the way mechanical and later quartz watches improved far beyond the limitations of the original pocket watches and wristwatches.

charging your watch nightly (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about two weeks ago | (#48272341)

> Will millions of people really want to charge and fuss with their watch at least once a day?

I can't speak for everyone else, but I vote a decisive no. I already have a stupid company-issued phone with a non-swappable battery that I have to charge every night, and occasionally during the day if I use it a lot. I tell ya, I long for the days when a pager would run for weeks on a single AA battery. The thought of having a second device that needs that level of care and feeding is frankly revolting.

Douglas Adams wasn't cynical enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272345)

Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

Except now, we think digital watches that run down in a day are a pretty neat idea.

Whatever "progress" and "evolution" are, Apple is the opposite.

Seiko Kinetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about two weeks ago | (#48272357)

I've had one 10 years and never had to have it serviced and it does what I want a watch to do, tell the time. Now if only someone made a mobile phone that you could hear and didn't drop calls...or in other words worked like a phone. What an amazing thing that would be.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?