Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlwaysBCoding | Hacker News Reader

That was one of my favorite features.

I've always wished there was some sort of one bit communication for "want to get a drink?" or "want to go for a bike ride?" or "want to watch the redskins game?"

How cool would it be to vibrate someone's wrist with a martini glass saying implying that I haven't seen you in a while and want to go get a drink. No need for email, calling, texting anything. Just so simple, ping someone and say that I want to see them.

I think it's a bigger deal than you realize.

View on HN

> How cool would it be to vibrate someone's wrist with a martini glass saying implying that I haven't seen you in a while and want to go get a drink. No need for email, calling, texting anything.

At best, "cool" is all it is. It certainly isn't useful. If you haven't seen me in a while and I get a poorly drawn martini glass picture, I'm not going to think, "Cool. Drinks with AlwaysBeCoding." I'm going to think, "what the hell is this picture of an ice cream cone with a marble in it?"

In comparison, texting "Drinks tonight?" is faster to type, faster to understand, and has some vague hope of conveying the intended message. And both show up on the watch.

Pictures might be acceptable to your significant other. If one of my friends sent me one, I and the rest of the group would spend the next 10 minutes brainstorming unflattering nicknames to forever annoint him with.

>At best, "cool" is all it is. It certainly isn't useful. [...] Pictures might be acceptable to your significant other.

Isn't useful to you? Personally, I find this immensely useful. I don't know of any other device to communicate with the significant other in such an intimate way. This is precisely what I wanted. You might understand it better when you're in a relationship but spend a lot of time away from each other. Of course pictures and taps mean much more than texting. Of course it's fun to invent your own sign language. If you don't have a use case for this watch, it doesn't mean it's not “useful”.

Funny you should mention it, but I currently live about 10,000 kilometers from my girlfriend. And like I said, it's maybe an OK thing between partners. I think it's a stupid gimmick that would immediately get old even then, but that's it. You should not send a cutesy picture in lieu of an actual message to anyone else.

> I'm going to think, "what the hell is this picture of an ice cream cone with a marble in it?"

Only because this isn't currently a common type of communication. You'd instantly understand it if it were more standard.

> If one of my friends sent me one, I and the rest of the group would spend the next 10 minutes brainstorming unflattering nicknames to forever annoint him with.

Whether you're into smartwatches or not, this doesn't seem like a very friendly personality. You're really going to get this up in arms because a friend sent you a picture-based message?

You're reading me wrong. I wouldn't be up in arms about it -- I'd be giddy at the prospect of giving my friend shit over it. As presumably, my friends would be for me if I sent them sketches.

I apologize then for the judgment. I read your comment in a more antagonistic way. Cheers!

Without context and metadata, I cannot fathom how finger-drawn pictures could convey data clearly, much less those done on a 1" screen. If someone got a picture of a fish, as demonstrated, for instance -- presuming they actually recognize it as a fish -- are they really going to think of sushi? That seems like a bit of a reach, a tonne of narrative adding context that the picture most certainly doesn't add.

I've done the drawn picture thing. It isn't new, and many messaging clients have supported it for literally years (ICQ supported it in the 90s). And when it was added everyone sent pictures around, and quickly (very quickly) it was completely forgotten.

It's a gimmick through and through.

Yo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com