Slashdot Mirror
How Apple Watch Is Really a Regression In Watchmaking
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?
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.
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?
Back in the day, you didn't need to charge your phone every day. Now you do. Big deal?
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)?
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.
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. :)
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.)
Real nerds don't call it "First Edition."
There was only one edition. Any assertion to the contrary will be vigorously ignored.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
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
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
As a train, the airplane is pitiful. It can't haul as much freight or as many passengers. It costs more. It needs to land and be refueled more frequently. And who needs an airplane anyway? Trains are safer as you are less likely to die in an accident. Trains may not be as fast, but what's the hurry? I like sitting in the car and seeing the country go by at ground level. You can't see a damn thing from an airplane and what you do see looks like little toys. Yep, only an idiot would build or buy an airplane because I like trains.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok