Hacker News Reader

When I see an Apple Watch, I don't think "Cool, that person has a smart watch.", I think "That's an ugly watch.". Round watch faces at least return to the classic shape.

I think you're onto something there.

My ideal smart watch would be round with mechanical arms and a mechanical crown, but with a color eInk dial/face with a high refresh rate (I'm not sure if there is current eInk tech which meets these specs yet). I do not want to look like I'm wearing a compass on my arm, though.

One of my coworkers has a rather large, round, positively can-like Android smart watch. I look at it, and think, That's way too thick for a watch. It has a flatter back, which I think is a plus.

Another thing I just realized: Traditional watches often attach to the wristband much closer to the wrist than many smart watches. This helps them "disappear" when being worn.

The best smart watch from a physical perspective is the Pebble Time Round, IMO. Just a shame the company went bust. And when they can't get the kind of OS-level hooks that Apple has the writing was always going to be on the wall.

Curved OLED is where it's at for smart watches.

"Smart Watches" remind me of the calculator watches engineers used to wear back in the day. It ended up being kinda sorta retro cool, but is incredibly nerdy.

There are very attractive square watches; Glashutte Original Senator 70s, Cartier Tank, Jaeger Lecoultre Reverso. Apple watch utterly fails at looking as good. It looks like a Dick Tracey TV-watch stuck on someone's wrist.

Otherwise I have no idea what one of these things is for, other than letting large corporations know about your heart rate. I like my ordinary Swiss and German watches; the engineering is fun to appreciate, they look kewul, give me something to nerd out about with salesguys that doesn't involve knowledge of sports, plus they tell me what time it is.

I really don't get the fascination for mechanical watches.

"engineering fun to appreciate"? Are you telling me you're thrilled to see a $4000 device (looking at the Jaeger Lecoultre) that will tell you the time (within a few seconds) if you remember to wind it up regularly?

I mean, you do you, by all means, but I don't get it.

I used to do experimental atomic physics, some of which involved a lot of time in the machine shop; small and well made mechanisms please me. Having one strapped to me is cool.

If you look at it and all you see is $4000 rather than the skill and artistry which went into designing and making it, well, have fun with your 'smart watch.' FWIIW I also like 80s era calculators and obscure slide rules. Knowing there is a technical improvement doesn't require you to use it.

> the skill and artistry which went into designing and making it

Well, sure there was skill and artistry involved. But there is skill and artistry involved in designing and building smart watches as well.

> FWIIW I also like 80s era calculators

Hopefully not to the point that you're carrying a $10000 TI-57 everywhere and swear that today's calculators just don't measure up to it...

There is zero individual skill and artistry that went into any smart watch that I know of. It's all soulless corporate excretions, just like most of the digital watches that were made in the quartz era (there are a few exceptions, like the Seiko spring drive).

If there were individual skill and artistry or even individual design or flair which went into them, they would be more interesting objects. It's theoretically possible to do. Nobody's really done it yet. I doubt anyone will for decades to come; the mindset that goes into a 'smart watch' is all wrong.

Ah yes, "soulless corporations", as opposed to the rich and soulful 30 year tradition of the holding company which owns A. Lange, Baume & Mercier, Cartier, IWC, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Montblanc, Officine Panerai, Piaget, Roger Dubuis, and Vacheron Constatin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richemont

Way to stick it to the Man by buying an overpriced set of gears from him!

You can see how much individual design is going on because each of these outfits puts their OWN name on the same basic product.

If you can't see any artistry and skill in the making of Apple Watch faces https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK7KPw9bLfI or their wrist straps https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/hodinkee-apple-watch-revie... then I don't know what "artistry" and "skill" are supposed to mean.

Those holding companies encourage artistry, mechanical excellence and beauty; they also sponsor some interesting sports. Apple doesn't do any of these things, and while I admire their apparent devotion to customer privacy -no comparison.

Re: your lack of understanding -at least you admit it! I mean why would anyone buy a sailboat or hand crafted knife? You can always buy some mass produced thing which is "better." Why buy a sports car when you can have a reliable honda? Why buy a pair of $600 Aldens when you can wear crocs? Heck, why buy a meal made by a human when you can drink soylent and live in your cube at work for more hours?

FWIIW I wouldn't buy any watches from those companies more or less because they're run by holding companies (maybe Jaeger), but they're a world cultural treasure for preserving this kind of artistry for middle class to upper middle class people to enjoy. Mostly subsidized by the Chinese trade, but whatever.

Now you're implying that a bigger marketing budget or a different marketing approach makes a company more worthy of your dollar than another.

No, I'm actually telling you why people buy antiquated devices like wristwatches. Or air cooled porsches. Or wooden sailing vessels. Or nice shoes (alden has a marketing budget of approximately zero). Some people really like craftsmanship rather than mass-produced utilitarian disposable garbage! Just because Glashutte Original is owned by swatch doesn't mean a heck of a lot; it used to be owned by the East German government. Still the same creative small company with a dedication to craftsmanship and tradition (admittedly it sucked under communism), rather than a trillion dollar company with a dedication to vacuuming up as much of your dollars as possible on the backs of slave labor.

FWIIW, as I said above: I do not buy watches from the "big" conglomorates (which, all together, are smaller than the ipad market). But I am glad they exist.

BTW I have a pocket watch which has been in my family since 1882. Try that with an apple watch and let me know how it goes.

First of all, I don't understand why you're getting down voted. Just because you have different opinion or you don't understand something?

And coming back your question: watch for man is a kind of jewellery, symbol of prestige, how wealthy you (your wallet) are. In some circles, people show it by having golden chains on the necks. In other by having "small", discreet details like cufflinks, sigils (if your family has aristocratic roots) and... watches.

I have a far cheaper automatic (mechanical auto-winding) watch, so maybe I can offer another perspective. I don't need to remember to wind it, though I do need to remember to wear it every few days so it auto-winds. The mechanism for this alone, with the rotor visible in the rear, is really fascinating to watch. There's something very satisfying about a watch operating solely dependent on mechanical precision rather than a digital computer.

Also, more generally, because it competes on craftsmanship rather than having the latest features, it won't be outdated in a few years as will every modern smartwatch. This changes how I look at it, because unlike with my smartphones or laptops, in the back of my mind I don't have a plan to eventually replace or upgrade it. It feels less... disposable.

I hope this helps illustrate my decision process a little. Obviously you may feel differently, but to me the feeling of consistency that I get from something that will be functional and repairable decades from now makes it a reasonably logical decision.

> The mechanism for this alone, with the rotor visible in the rear, is really fascinating to watch.

I can see the appeal of visible gears. But most mechanical watch aficionados seem to satisfy with the thought that the gears EXIST.

> it competes on craftsmanship

Not entirely sure what that means. It's not like smartwatches don't feature ingenuous engineering and quite a bit of manual assembly labor.

> it won't be outdated in a few years as will every modern smartwatch

That always seemed an exceedingly silly argument to me. Mechanical watches have been outdated for DECADES. By the 1980s, they were thoroughly outclassed in accuracy, functionality, and price.

Sure, in a few years, today's smartwatches will have been surpassed by better models, while odds are that the mechanical watch maker will, at best, have slapped a new paint scheme on the same old model. But in a few years, today's smartwatches will still outclass mechanical watches. And I don't see what's superior about stagnant technology.

> something that will be functional and repairable decades from now

For sufficiently small values of "functional", as apparently being off by 15 seconds a day is considered "well within their quality standards".

https://forums.watchuseek.com/f419/jaeger-lecoultre-watch-ac...

I'm definitely with you on the "Traditional watch" front. I was looking into smart watches recently and decided the so-called Hybrid Smartwatches were definitely more my style. I ended up getting a Nokia Steel HR. The display isn't eInk and it doesn't have a second hand, but it does fitness tracking and unobtrusive notifications, while still looking like a watch.

The Gligo looks good too, and I hope more hybrid manufacturers start making decent eInk watches, but it would honestly bother me having it display the time digitally under the analog hands.

HR user here. I'm very satisfied with the functionality, the fact that I can forget about the battery and that it's basically a normal watch with advanced functions. Most of my usage is for notifications and fitness.

What I'm not happy is that the 40 mm version is kinda ugly since the rim is too wide and that there's no two way communication so I can't change a song on my phone or decline a call.

Yeah, I would prefer if the eInk display was used to emulate the ticks and numbers of a more traditional watch dial than actually display the time. (For instance, I actually really like the classic Timex Expedition dial. It's not high-end, but it's simple and clean.)

Is it really smartwatch? I mean are you able to install some software there from Play Store for example?

It does not have an app store.

On the other hand, it monitors my step count, heart rate, and exercise sessions. It lets me set alarms that trigger during the lightest part of my sleep cycle, and it displays notifications from my phone.

It's certainly at least a smarter watch.

EDIT: And given how poorly optimised smart watches are for glancing at the time, and the constant need to charge them, I'd argue you can barely call those a "watch" :P

Begs the question: what is a smartwatch?

It's just a matter of what people are used to. In a few decades a round watch with mechanical arms will seem odd and ugly to most consumers. Style is always in flux.

I dunno, we've had digital watches with square faces and at least some additional functionality over analogue ones since the 70s and the consensus continues to be that the analogue watch faces look classier