How Apple Watch Is Really a Regression In Watchmaking

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 30, 2014 @07:00AM from the maybe-they-could-merge-with-timex dept.

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?

3 of 415 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

How big a fuss is it, really? by daemonhunter · 2014-10-30 07:02 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:How big a fuss is it, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-30 07:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's a big enough fuss that people stopped using mechanical watches in the first place.
Do you charge your phone every day? by mveloso · 2014-10-30 07:07 · Score: 5, Informative

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