A £150 watch with a display technology that doesn't update quickly enough to display seconds. Er...?
Unlike almost every other modern gadget - TVs being a notable exception, perhaps - watches have been getting steadily bigger over the years, not smaller. Miniaturisation is not the name of the game, even though microelectronics have replaced clockwork and batteries have replaced springs. Phosphor World Time Curved Phosphor …
***And how often do you need to know the time that accurately?"***
I don't know about "need", but its bloody useful to have a watch that is in synch with National Rail. My cheap "Waveceptor " is never no more than one or two seconds different from the station clocks, so I know whether its actually worth running for that train, or not.
It is quick enough to display seconds its just VERY annoying to refresh the screen (the whole black screen flash) every second. Additionally being e-ink power is consumed with every screen refresh, so it will last 60 times longer without seconds. As unfortunately for e-ink you cannot refresh just part of the display. until they sort that is there any point?
Now I have to say the only advantage I can see to using e-ink over LCD is that you are not tied to using pre-set LCD 'blocks', but it looks like they have forgotten this with this design. I'd have thought the least they would have done would be to showcase the display by having multiple modes, say a nice analogue style display or a digital, something to at least show that it is not using the LCD 'blockiness'.
I would really like a simple e-ink digital watch that tells the time and date, is durable, water resistant to 100m (or better, 200m), not stupidly big, and not over-priced.
It doesn't need world time or any other gimmicks. Just something cheap, durable and lightweight - ideal for outdoors activities.
"the Phosphor does not switch from Daylight Saving Time"
So that's a 100 quid for a watch that doesn't tell the right time. Gosh, I am *sooo* not the target market for this product. But I suppose I already knew that. In a world where just about everything has a clock, typically synchronised to an atomic time standard, the only places where I can't easily discover what time it is are the sorts of places where I don't care.
Presumably, then, this product is jewellery rather than functional. So that's 100 quid for a brick that reminds me of a 1980s-era mobile phone. Gosh, again.
We all dream about a proper watch. We sometimes even buy one. And at the end of the day we use the phone. It is "today's watch".
I have been tempted more than once to sit down with a magnifying glass to see exactly what is wrong with my grandad handme-down to my dad and nowdays my hairloom Omega. Grandad apparently got it from one of his patients during WW2 instead of payment for saving his life - he was the only doctor in 200km radius to remember his oath and treat jews and non-jews alike in the middle of the 1944 malaria outbreak in Southern Europe. When he refused to take any money for the quinine the patient "forgot" his watch. From there on it is in my family being handed down for 60+ years now. One problem with it - it stopped working sometimes in the late 90-es and neither my dad, nor me have had the time to look what's wrong with it.
So for a 10th year in a row I keep not being able to find the time to make it tick again. So instead of having a proper "man's watch" in the form of a _REAL_ 1930-es vintage Omega, I still still use my mobile phone instead.
I bet I am not the only one out there who would love to have a "proper watch", even has a proper watch and ends up using his phone again, again and again.
Really? You'll be telling me next there are still companies that care about your choice of tie or suit. Any company that requires either is not one I would care to work for. The only uniform I had to wear each day was at school.
(So obviously I'll always be poor, so feel free to feel superior, while I slouch about and get the job done regardless)
For many, the phone is how they check time.
For some, the watch is a man's jewelry. So unless you're wearing a 'French Cuffed' shirt, you really have no jewelry to show your status in life. (And unless you're part of the mob, no pinky rings. )
I have a Breitling Colt Automatic for workouts and daily wear. An AP Royal Oak for work, and my father's old watches as a backup. (And I still have my cheap Timex for when I go out in to the field.)
So yeah, those who know watches will see what's on your wrist and will judge you based on it.
(Certain people gravitate toward certain watch brands.)
Face it, we're just like women who look and admire other womens' jewelry.
But it's something you get judged by, especially in business. Not wearing a watch at all, or wearing a £10 casio will be noticed. (as will wearing a really vulger, over the top flashy Rolex)
Also, you might spend all day with your phone in your hand, but i keep mine in my pocket, glancing at my wrist is a tad more convenient that getting it out.
...by 'in business' you mean 'in those layers of dull middle management where nothing useful gets done'. Because I work in engineering, where all the work gets done, and no-one gives a shit; and I know enough people who work at the boardroom level, where all the direction gets done, and I know no-one there gives a shit either. It's just you schmucks in the middle who think what you wear on your watch is a vital indicator of manliness / success / ability to close the deal or some such mind-numbing bullshit.
A ten pound casio also gets you on assorted terrist watch lists. (pun? in security state america, pun ish on you!) Which is a bit unfair because next to allegations of beardy turbans using cheap casios to make bombs go boom, various THEM also wear cheap casios because, well, they're cheap and no sweat if they accidentally break or get used up in operations, you know. And also because several tens or hundred million of those things got sold because, hey, they're cheap and therefore easy to replace. There's more to the cheap watch wearing world than people that kill other people, you know.
On a lighter note, wouldn't it be fun if this thing became a hit with the american apparel shopping crowd?
American Apparel is a company. They make mostly primary colored basic clothing designs, and their big marketing play is that everything's made in America under vaguely reasonable working conditions (as opposed to being sewn in Indonesia by the light of an orphan's tears).
I don't know who would be considered 'the American Apparel' crowd in the UK. In North America it's generally young extremely attractive people who can look good in a simply-cut t-shirt that's primary red, and also corporate organizations with a conscience (who bulk buy t-shirts for customization and want to Buy American and not Buy Orphan.)
Nice to see I'm not the only person left who likes their watch to be discreet. And preferably very slim. In general, the bigger the watch, the more likely the strap is to split when you bend your wrist under tension or weight.
So, not great for work then unless you're a graphic designer or something equally "metrosexual".
What on earth is the point of putting an e-ink display into it, only to then imitate the old-fashioned segment-based LCD that digital watches have been using for decades? I mean... look at the photos... they've replicated that 'draw any digit from an 8' segmented look they have. This watch fails on so many levels (expensive, slow, bulky, no second display, crap refresh rates, probably eats through batteries 10 times faster than an LCD) and is clearly an attempt to shoehorn a new technology into a position that older technology does perfectly efficiently.
I have the previous version of this watch with a metal casing and metal strap. It displays much less informaiton, but what it displays it presents nicely. The metal strap and case make it look considerably less 'metrosexual' too, plus it can be had for fifty quid less than this one.
I was surprised to see some that some of the characters on the display are segmented. On an e-ink screen? Really? Aside from the display being curved in this case, if the technology still requires you to have segmented characters on the display then stick to LCD - even then, there are some decent LCD dot matrix watches to be had.
Giant watches are kind of dumb to start with, though this looks a bit less awful if your wrist is just the right shape,
No seconds... WTF?
No DST... good. I don't trust a watch to know what timezone I'm in, I'd rather it lets me change it so I can be sure.
And, I'd rather have a watch with moving parts I can spend hours staring at.
"Maybe too many guys hope that wearing a big-bezelled boy on their wrist really will make everyone else think they're racing drivers - the old four-wheeled penis extension no longer cutting the mustard - but these days chunky is in, compact is for the chicks."
I read that and scrolled up to check the author and see if it was Sarah Bee. It wasn't. Hmm.
...who has to get their phone out of their pocket every five minutes when they're running late rather than simply glancing at their wrist?
Facetiousness aside there are many times, such as walking somewhere in the pouring rain or sitting on an aircraft, when getting your phone out to tell the time can be a pain -- for those times having a watch on can be useful.
Oh, you're one of those people who is always running behind schedule, and as a result have a Pavlov-moment every thirty seconds because you know you're going to be late and aren't looking forward to making your excuses for wasting the other party's time?
When I'm walking in the rain (we had a lovely rainy morning here in Sonoma yesterday, the main Whippet & I had a wonderful "lets get soaked" couple of hours), I don't care what time it is. When I'm sitting in either of my aircraft, I have a couple of clocks easily visible. If you mean commercial aircraft, when on the ground the time is available almost anywhere you look ... once on commercial aircraft, the time is out of your hands.
Inadequate functionality, stupid use of technology, just plain bad industrial design, rather like those absurd retro binary LED "geek" watches, designed to appeal to those morons who think binary gives geek cred; as a developer I use binary, but only when it makes sense!
I also keep savings in Bullion, rather that retro property and so-called bank savings accounts, because it makes sense, because it protects me from the current craze for competitive currency devaluation.
I would add that I also don't wear a watch, they just got in my way and made a sweaty stink on my wrist, also most speedos can show the time when cycling.
I've grown quite attached to my Waveceptor. Solar powered and radio synching means it never needs batteries and never needs setting. If you left it in a drawer for years, then when you took it out it would charge itself back up and set itself to the correct time, with the hands whirling round to get there :-)
I'd prefer it to be a bit thinner, although if 6mm is considered thin now, I guess there's not much chance of that!
I say this because it runs on a CR2032. That's a dirty, great, fat £2-coin-of-a-battery. Now, it e-Ink is supposed to be super-low-power, that means that the oscillator, counters and display driver need 3 volts, and loadsa current, so it's probably fabricated using low-power "normal" logic.
Real watches, from Casio, Seiko etc., have specially fabricated ASICS that will accurately count with a supply voltage down to a volt. Think about it - an analogue-faced watch successfully drives the second hand round 31,536,000 times in the typical 1 year life of the Silver-oxide cell about the size of a shrunk Cheerio.
Given that, I bet it dies in a few months as well.
It looks like it was designed by a first year art student who'd spent the first 95% of their assignment time drunk.
"Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two 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."
Rolex Submariner Oyster Perpetual Date. A proper clockwork blokes watch which is self-winding, waterproof to 1000ft, and has a virtually scratch-proof window made of white sapphire. Requires no batteries, glows in the dark. A timeless classic. *sigh*.
I actually mentioned this watch in my will because it was worth deciding who should inherit it after by cloggs have popped. I can't see anyone mentioning this E-Ink thing in their own wills...
I'm glad someone has noticed gents watches are too big. I'm looking to replace my £10 Casio (which I've had so long it's cost me about £60 in new straps), but all the modern watches are twice the size of my wrist.
As for that watch, I'd rather have the €40 Breitling knock off I was offered in Bodram last week, even if it did only have one hand working!
I looked into this myself, its not readily available in the UK, chances are you will end up paying closer to £150 because of import duties from the US site (at least implied that they're in the US). Plus I wouldn't trust them to send me it, check out some of the feedback for them available on the net. Plus for some reason, the top UK distributor RED5 stopped selling them a while back, possibly down to poor supply.
One point of note, which leaves me totally unsurprised as to its physical design and lack of decent UI design (if you attribute user interfaces to watches), here is the contact page for the company -
Art Technology Limited
Unit 11, 7th Floor, Grand City Plaza No.1
Sai Lau Kok Road, Tsuen Wan
New Territories, Hong Kong
They're supposedly and primarily marketed out of the US, its actually a piece of far eastern tat!! If you could speak Chinese, chances are you could pick it up for £50 from a shop in HK.
All in all, they're somewhat suspicious, a big disappointment for something so promising.
Its odd too that they never considered fitting a small LED light to illuminate it in the dark for a few seconds, same as on LCD watches for decades!
This post has been deleted by its author