Smart Watches

[Chopper the ex Copper]

I find the concept of wearing a watch which loses virtually all its functionality unless a mobile phone is in my pocket just plain silly. Seeing as you have to have a phone on you or in very close proximity, for these devices to function anyway then you may as well just use the phone. It's tech for the easily pleased, making the gullible think there's a need where there is none.

Not sure how displaying the time could be construed as pointless, when it's actually extremely useful and almost universally popular. I would say the opposite, reading info on a crappy little screen which can be read in much greater ease and comfort on a larger screen is utterly pointless. Until they discharge mobile phone part of the chain I think I'll cut out the middle man and stick to the phone, not that i every carry one unless I'm on call for work or SAR.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Re:

You see I cannot see the point in wearing something just to see what time it is. Just like many other people. So it's pointless in my opinion.
I don't need to know the time, kids/youth don't bother with them and few of my friends and colleges other than the oldies wear them.

They do however have smartphones (the things that you use just to telephone people)
They can and will probably see the point, when it becomes mainstream, of smart watches.
Just stop thinking of them as a clock, or a glorified bracket.

Many I chat to can see the usefulness of them, they just need to get beyond their literally just released (wrt Android Wear) status. They are still generally overly large screens, which is the big downside to the moto360.

And no I'm not talking about 'tech' people.


Like I say each to their own.

 

[Neil]

Re: Re:

You see I cannot see the point in wearing something just to see what time it is. Just like many other people. So it's pointless in my opinion.

Yet don't "smart" watches default to this?

Are you saying as a singular purpose? In which case, I've only got a couple of watches that purely just tell the time, even if that's all they look like they do.

I don't need to know the time

Really?

Most still find a need. Yes, I hear talk that a lot of people simply use their smartphone, and have pretty much abandoned watches.

To suddenly take up watches again, once "smart", funky, trendy, watches have been marketed to them...

kids/youth don't bother with them and few of my friends and colleges other than the oldies wear them.

Are you saying the watch market is in decline, then?

Or that it needs a rethink before it does slide into oblivion?

They do however have smartphones (the things that you use just to telephone people)
They can and will probably see the point, when it becomes mainstream, of smart watches.
Just stop thinking of them as a clock, or a glorified bracket.

I don't just use my smartphone as a phone.

I use it for several other things - sports tracking, music, camera, video, email, internet. And my N8 as a DAB radio.

The reason why I'm presently calling them as a solution without a problem, is because without a smartphone - well, what's the point? There are times when I want my distance from the damned thing.

So if smart-watches are to compete with wearable tech - they do rather need to compete with wearable tech - not simply tout potential - well in order to hold sway from the encumbents, anyways.

The current momentum in them has me thinking - meh. So that's what can be done with them, but not what I'd want from something supposedly smart, on my wrist, replacing something that does a damned fine job already.

Many I chat to can see the usefulness of them, they just need to get beyond their literally just released (wrt Android Wear) status. They are still generally overly large screens, which is the big downside to the moto360.

And no I'm not talking about 'tech' people.

Plenty of people allow themselves to be marketed to, and a need to be seed over plenty of tech devices - there's nothing new under the sun, here.

Like I say each to their own.

But here's the point - those that don't get the point, in relation to smart-watches being options for current things, that are reasonable dealt with by more specific wearable tech - well smart-watches don't tend to be a decent replacement as of yet - unless you're simply looking for a gadget to buy, and a tech paradigm to have yourself led into thinking you need.

 

[xerxes]

Re:

You see I cannot see the point in wearing something just to see what time it is.

My watch has the date on it too.

And it's solar. So far it's gone for about 6 years without having to change the battery, charge it or wind it up.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Whereas I work, so I need to know the time to start and finish. While at work there are numerous reasons to note the time. Then when I've finished have a 3 yea old to collect from ore school, so j need again to know the time so I can collect her. when I get home I'll want to listen to the archers, so I'll again need to knkw the time.

A decent watch is so awesomely useful that the far horizons of its benefits beyond sight of the average Joe, even those that think. our lives are so structured, so minutely governed by time, it's.virtually unthinkable for anyone with a job, famy. and social commitments not to have a chronograph of some description in their lives.

 

[xerxes]

Re:

I've worn a wrist watch since I was in my early teens and it feels odd if I don't wear one now. I naturally look at my wrist to see the time and it it's a secondary thought to look around for a clock or at my telephone. Even sat at my PC, with the time on permanent display in the bottom left of my screen, I look at my watch first. :?

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re: Re:

unless you're simply looking for a gadget to buy, and a tech paradigm to have yourself led into thinking you need.

I think it is perfectly possible there are gadget freaks, early adopters or whatever you want to call them, who are not being led at all, but are in fact spending a little of their hard earned to get in at the start of a new tech they full understand is in its infancy but of interest none the less. £200 is chicken feed nowadays. Though it would buy you a nice old watch.

 

[Neil]

Re: Re:

unless you're simply looking for a gadget to buy, and a tech paradigm to have yourself led into thinking you need.

I think it is perfectly possible there are gadget freaks, early adopters or whatever you want to call them, who are not being led at all, but are in fact spending a little of their hard earned to get in at the start of a new tech they full understand is in its infancy but of interest none the less. £200 is chicken feed nowadays. Though it would buy you a nice old watch.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not objecting to pointless tech, that requires the easily led to sponsor and beta / develop.

Believe me, I'm no stranger to technology, be it pointless seeding of the market or otherwise.

Plenty of people take great delight in spending time, money, energy, and ingenuity - and having their effort applied to make a product that evolves to being competent. They often enjoy the process, and business seems to enjoy the willing accomplices, and free, diverse labour, ideas, contributions, and polish. I've taken part in many betas, be they enterprise level, or consumer level.

My only objection is when it's postulated to be ready for prime time, or used as some rationale to hand-wavingly dismiss very valid current devices that actually have purpose beyond speculation.

Yes, in the year 2015, we'll all be driving around in hover cars, kids will be zipping around on hover boards, well all be talking to each other, and immersed in 3D holographs off a small, wrist-based device, world hunger will be solved, peace will reign in the middle-east, and I'll have evolved to the point I can emit bolts of lightning outta my 'ariss.

I get the notion - "Isn't it cool...", "Imagine what they'll be able to do...", "They'll revolutionise your life..." - no really, I do. I just find that sometimes, the hyperbole overreaches, or is overstated / overplayed.

One day, maybe, smart-watches may well be the things people are romantically suggesting they are valid for, currently - and perhaps that's sufficient to tickle the fancy of some that just want something to spend money and play with a gadget. But going full circle to what was asked about in the OP - well they're not there yet - unless we're simply talking about the hipster, skinny-jeans-wearing cyclist - and to be liberal... not that threre's anything wrong with that... - who wants something to spend money on, and attempt to look a bit cool (FSVO: cool).

In the meantime, people who really want something that's more suitable for cycling purposes, will probably be better served by some of the more dedicated, robust and tested devices, even if they're not, selectively, quite as "cool" (FSVO: cool) as smart-watches.

 

[FluffyChicken]

Re:

Exactly he needs google glass, far more useful for a cyclist.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re:

Now that smart 'phones' have evolved to the point where reasonably capable cameras are available, the smart watch remote shutter release is a very attractive option. That is the killer app for me, once the prices come down a bit.