Slashdot Mirror
Return of the TV Wristwatch
An anonymous reader writes "20 years after the Seiko TV watch, another Asian firm has given it another go. The Globe and Mail in Canada got their hands on the NHJ TV Watch and have posted a review. The writer thinks it's still just way too huge to be a watch but is still impressed."
The Seiko Wristwatch TV wasn't a watch and it wasn't just a "thing" on your wrist. It had a breakout box that carried audio and power that fit on your belt. The actual wrist part of the device was MUCH smaller than this device (at least as it appears in the picture)
I got one of the Seiko's off eBay as a novelty item not too long ago. I actually would like it if someone did the same with the breakout box also being an iPod like MP3 player. I'd rather have as small a device as possible on my wrist and have it tell time, if I want higher functions - connect the breakout box.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Let me know when it's available as a pocket watch..
It's actually not a watch - it's a wrist-mounted TV unit. Which makes it a bit of a misnomer; as the article states, nobody would wear it on his wrist like he would a watch.
Offtopic part:
I used to have a calculator watch in 7th grade. It beeped when you pushed ANY of the buttons, and I couldn't find any way to turn the beeps off. So the teacher wouldn't let me use it on my tests, because it disturbed the rest of the class. So I was taking math tests with no calculator, too many problems to do in my head or on paper, and I was no less geek than when I had it on.
Now I don't wear a watch at all.
of this thing is pretty high IMHO, it's usefullness is almost zilch. First, when was the last time you watched broadcast TV? In my case, it's been years ago; then again, I rarely watch TV at all. The only good use I can think of for this thing is at sporting events when you want the camera's view. I grow tired of "gadgety" gadgets. I want smaller, lighter and multi-functional---the first thing that comes to mind is something like a Treo 600. A good, clear screen (OLED?) coupled with broadband wireless and a satellite tuner would REALLY set the world on fire, even if it looked like a geek's wet dream. I know, I know: we have to get past clunky and useless to get to cool and useable. But why did this thing ever leave the R&D Department?
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
In Asian countries there is a fashionable trend and social acceptance to wearing these newly looking watches.
Like the Casio G-shocks and other hi-tech watches, they sold like hot cakes in the mid 90s. It wasn't until the year 2000 before they start making an appearance in the U.S. This TV watch will probably be a super trend in Asia for years before people start buying it in U.S.
Phones with TV reception are far more likely to receive mass acceptance than these wrist monstrosities. Toshiba and NEC have working models in Japan, check this WSJ review, and SprintPCS is brining MobiTV to some of its models in the U.S.
These attributes do not apply to watching television. Whatever video you watch will probably be of sufficient length that the time wasted fishing a larger, more useful device out of your pocket is negligible. This is why wristphones are stupid, too. If the device's use takes more than a split second and/or it doesn't need to be accessible on an instant whim, there is no reason to put it on your wrist. I'm all for video-enabled cell phones. I see no reason why my portable electronics need to reside somewhere other than my pockets. Hey, why not attach an ipod to a headband? The controls would be SUPER accessible!
Now can we please forget these stupid wristwatch gadgets and get on with the flying cars?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can't compare to OLED screens. They still use too much power. The light emitter is always on therefore wasted energy. An Fed (field emitting display) is more efficient but is not mass produced by anyone.