# Must See: Android is gunning for the watch market....This to me is a compelling smart watch



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

I've asked about smartwatches before, but I didn't until today come across anything I felt compelling enough an alternative to a basic watch. Today, I read this and this is much closer to what I'd have expected from a smartwatch. It's an Android device and it's obvious that Android is on the right track.

What strikes me is that although I doubt it'll inspire the same passion as does say a VC Year of the X or a perp cal or a tourbillion, I also wouldn't wear it and a traditional watch. Perhaps I'd buy mechanical watches still, but I'd then be more inclined to frame them or case them for display only.






There is a corresponding commentary by Ariel Adams here: Motorola Moto 360 Watch Debuts Google 'Android Wear' OS: The Smartwatch For Everyone Is Here | aBlogtoWatch

All the best.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
- Galileo Galilei, _Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina 
_


----------



## DaveTOG (Apr 15, 2012)

They got what all the other Smart watch people missed. They made it look like a watch.


----------



## iamzip (Nov 12, 2013)

I thought this was going to be about the other Android.


----------



## monza06 (Mar 30, 2009)

More useless trinkets, product of marketing BS, Google is following Apple in becoming too big for its own good, its search engine only gives you 'sponsored' results, the new google maps for PC is practically unusable, and now they look to expand into other products nobody asked for, instead of making what they already have better...


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

The materialistic view of happiness of our age starkly revealed in our understanding of the word "luxury."
- Alain de Botton

I'd almost certainly wear that watch.

I now know there's going to be no point in buying any more expensive watches for my kids. There is no way they will wear that + a traditional watch (I wouldn't either.) and the connectivity it provides is going to be very compelling for them. They are more connected to their tech than they were to their mother at birth.

But it's not just them. Seeing that video of how the thing works has me wondering whether I really need to buy any more pricey watches for myself. I'm a luxury/style junkie before I'm a movement junkie. I would love to trade the uncertainty that comes with not easily knowing just what I'm getting when I buy a watch (any price) for the easily understood performance metrics of a "wearable" that's like a phone or PC. I'm certain the case options are limitless as are the dial imagery one could have.

I would not miss for one second all the BS that accompanies watch marketing, to say nothing of the thousands per year I have to spend on maintenance. I'm sure I don't need to enumerate any examples of the tons of frivolous things one can do with a few grand. <wink>

All the best.

Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah 
Zip-A-Dee-A 
My oh my, what a wonderful day 
Plenty of sunshine heading my way
Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah 
Zip-A-Dee-A 
- Ray Gilbert, _Song of the South_


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

It hit me the first time looking at this round watch that you could have different faces for the watch. You could have one watch with an infinite number of dials and colors. That aspect actually has me generally excited for the long term, though I will NOT be an earlier adopter.


----------



## watchdaddy1 (Dec 2, 2009)

Looks way cool, but I wouldn't own 1. 
Can't see myself talking in2 a watch like Dr.Spock.
Do like all that info w/ just a swipe of the finger but my smart phone does the same.


----------



## Francois Boucher (Feb 15, 2006)

Can't wait for the Apple model!


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

monza06;7547326...[B said:


> the new google maps for PC is practically unusable[/B], and now *they look to expand into other products nobody asked for*, instead of making what they already have better...


Red:
I agree. It stinks in comparison to what came before...perhaps I should have done the tutorial for it, but I managed to use the old one just fine without the tutorial. That, IMO, is not an improvement.

Blue:
Surely that's no more than a knee-jerk reaction. Yes? I seriously question the verity of that assertion. Did the implications of that statement's actually being accurate cross your mind? It's not totally impossible for a company like Google to miss the mark, but it's damn near that. There's no way they or anyone else will invest that much money into a project that hasn't sufficient market demand potential to make the risk worthwhile, especially not a publicly traded company.

Other:
What I think will be most interesting is what traditional watchmakers will start offering Android based watches.

*Is this doom for traditional quartz watches? * IMO, almost certainly.

*Is this spelling doom for mechanical watches among typical consumers?* Quite possibly.

All the best.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

For me, my dislike of smart watches has far less to do with what they look like, and for more to do with what they represent. This obsessive need to remain connected, all the time, and through as many vehicles as possible - phones, computers, cars, tablets, and now watches.


----------



## Fox Covert (Mar 2, 2014)

watchdaddy1 said:


> Looks way cool, but I wouldn't own 1.
> Can't see myself talking in2 a watch like Dr.Spock.
> Do like all that info w/ just a swipe of the finger but my smart phone does the same.


Dr Spock writes books on childcare. However Mr Spock does not.
I totally agree about google maps a good resource wasted


----------



## omega1234 (May 17, 2012)

Android Wear is a very intriguing OS, I don't think I'll be buying in with the Motorola 360 though, but maybe in the future. The problem is, I love my mechanical watches and will forever. Its really the battle of my two hobbies, horology and tech, and it seems like mechanical watches are winning the battle for my primary hobby.


----------



## ilitig8 (Oct 11, 2013)

omega1234 said:


> Its really the battle of my two hobbies, horology and tech, and it seems like mechanical watches are winning the battle for my primary hobby.


It does create a difficult conundrum, since unless you are willing to wear two "watches" you have to choose. Were I not into mechanical watches in a rather big way I would run toward this new innovation.


----------



## novedl (May 20, 2009)

I'm no purist or traditionalist. I would ROCk that!


----------



## watchdaddy1 (Dec 2, 2009)

Fox Covert said:


> Dr Spock writes books on childcare. However Mr Spock does not.
> 
> _"You like potato and I like potahto._


----------



## mew88 (Jun 1, 2010)

Finally one that looks like a watch, but I would still not wear it.


----------



## BusyTimmy (Jul 24, 2009)

Nope.


----------



## hpark21 (Oct 8, 2007)

Looks like it is wearable extension to the phone. Mostly requiring data plan which I am too cheap to have.

Also, what would be the water resistance of the watch? current crop of smart phones have rather pathetic water resistance.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

ilitig8 said:


> *It does create a difficult conundrum,* since unless you are willing to wear two "watches" you have to choose. Were I not into mechanical watches in a rather big way I would run toward this new innovation.


It absolutely does, but it doesn't have to either. I offer tapestries as a parallel. Long ago, there were mundane tapestries, little more than blankets or rugs, and there were highly elaborate ones too. Tapestries were appreciated for their artistic value, the luxury of the textiles from which they were made, as well as the intricacy of their creation and construction. They also had a practical purpose: to minimize drafts and help spaces retain heat. Eventually, building materials and construction methods made tapestries obsolete aside from their aesthetic value. Tapestries became works of art and so they remain even today. So at one time, tapestries were part of the HVAC system of their day. Then another technology pushed them aside.

Mechanical watches have been very much the modern day tapestry. Little but the final death knell is left before they are relegated firmly into the world of art, at which point the prices, like the price of art, will skyrocket after a brief but dramatic fall.

* Watch Industry (Supply-Side)Thoughts:*
As an aside, I wonder how much advance notice of this the mechanical watch industry insiders have/had? Do they already have plans for managing the transition so as to keep prices high? Clearly the big volume makers will be hardest hit. Small-batch producers like FPJ and P Dufour may actually see no meaningful impact as their production volumes are low enough that their demand curves may not suffer too much. Hard to say for sure; it would depend on whether their current volumes are small enough to remain unaffected...For my part, I'd say now is not a good time to buy major watch company stocks. Has anyone checked Swatch's and others' stock prices today or on trend over the past month?

My guess is that the Swiss will be totally blindsided by this thing. They have a track record of being very good at telling time, but lousy at reading the writing on the wall. The Asians will roll with it and get on board to make money ASAP. It wouldn't surprise me to see one of them being the first to announce having an Android watch.

Those questions notwithstanding, the bigger question is what will folks/companies who can do nothing but make watches do? Cartier will get by. Montblanc will get by. The "holy trinity," (along with many many of the brands that wish they were so holy) however, may have a rough time of it; moreover, it may be come the "Time Keeping Two," if not just one.

I think if the big names in watches know what's good for them, they'd develop a capability to produce these things, or at least elaborate cases, so they can get on the bandwagon early. For some, doing so could be the opportunity they need to get ahead of Rolex and Omega and make a name for themselves as the "posh" choice in "wearables." I suspect too there'll be opportunity for companies that can take and existing mechanical or quartz watch and convert it to an Android watch. I know I have plenty of inexpensive to moderately priced watches that I wouldn't mind converting into an Android "wearable."

*Consumer (Demand-Side) Thoughts:*
For consumers it's a much easier thing to deal with. One can deem oneself an art collector rather than a watch collector. There are certainly folks who collect fine tapestries and other types of bygone technologies. If one already thinks of one's watches as art rather than as fashion accessories or as function toys so to speak, the transition may not be a big deal at all. For others like me, it's a pretty big deal.

I have a watch on order right now that after seeing this I am considering cancelling, and I'm certainly going to call the seller before the week is out to discuss it. It's not that I don't like the watch; I love it; it's beautiful. But there is no way I'm keen to spend major bucks ($10K+) on a watch -- no matter how fine -- that really only has a useful life of five years or so, if that. As I said, I won't wear both and this thing looks very compelling to me; I can see how as it evolves over the next couple years it could become indispensable just as our cell phones are. I don't know what I'll do just now and I have time to think it through, but whereas yesterday that wasn't a consideration at all, today it is.

If I'm not alone in that line of thinking, that could become a real problem in the short term for many watchmakers. Even folks who've order $40K+ watches and are faced with the prospect of losing a non-refundable deposit may opt to take the loss and be done rather than spend the entire $50K+ and then do little more with the watch than mount it in a case or on a wall, particularly if they didn't fancy themselves art collectors to begin with. I doubt this development will affect the folks who buy $100K+ watches as a great many of them consider watches as pure art anyway, sometimes never really wearing them (in a functional, recurring sense, anyway). After all, how much difference is there between a Picasso on a wall and a VH-"T" in a case? It's hardly a stretch, IMO.

When it comes to non-watchies, I think this Android thing is a done deal. As for watchies, I think some will hold out for as long as they dare/can. The folks in the middle range, along with plenty at the top and bottom, are the ones whose watch buying behavior is difficult to predict, but I suspect the sway of non-watchie popular opinion will carry them to something akin to the Android Wearable. It'll just be too much of a convenience to forgo and walking around with two "watches" n will make them look/feel like loons or antediluvians, like someone wearing spats on their shoes, or a top hat with modern street wear, or carrying a pocket watch with a big chain dangling visibly from their waist or waist coat. <wink>

Just some initial thoughts. I'll admit to having flushed out all of them as I've only just found out about this Android minutes before I opened this thread.

Looking forward to reading other predictions about the impact of this thing on the watch industry -- WIS and non-WIS, makers, sellers, etc.

All the best.

We must live in the radiance of tomorrow, as our ancestors have suggested in their tales. For what is yet to come tomorrow has possibilities, and we must think of it, the simplest glimpse of that possibility of goodness. That will be our strength. That has always been our strength.
- Ishmael Beah, Radiance of Tomorrow


----------



## sduford (Nov 24, 2013)

First smart watch that looks like it might be worthy, but like someone else said, I'm already too connected with my smartphone and find myself turning off the data connection quite often so I don't get molested so much. I can't see making myself even more connected to the net with this gizmo.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

hpark21 said:


> Looks like it is wearable extension to the phone. * Mostly requiring data plan which I am too cheap to have.*
> 
> Also, what would be the water resistance of the watch? current crop of smart phones have rather pathetic water resistance.


LOL...perhaps if you would just not buy one expensive watch, you would feel less inclined to go cheap on your watch/Android "wearable?" LOL

Just messing with you..

All the best.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

sduford said:


> First smart watch that looks like it might be worthy, but like someone else said, I'm already too connected with my smartphone and find myself turning off the data connection quite often so I don't get molested so much. I can't see making myself even more connected to the net with this gizmo.


That is a young person's problem. LOL.


----------



## BrentYYC (Feb 2, 2012)

I wish they would stop calling these things smart 'watches' and start referring to them as what they really are, 'smart phone peripherals'. They have limited or no water resistance, a battery life of a few days, and they don't function unless they're linked to your phone (and within a few feet of it). They certainly will never replace a real wrist watch. A good watch is like wearable fine art... a smart watch is like a digital picture frame (that won't even do anything unless you load it with images and plug it in, to boot).

The only reason these ridiculous gimmicks came into existence is because cell phones started to become tablet sized and couldn't be worn on the belt or pocketed anymore, and became too inconvenient to pull out of a purse or briefcase for a quick look. Fortunately, I haven't drunk the kool-aid so my smart phone is still small enough to clip onto my belt and use easily. The only peripheral device I need is my Bluetooth earpiece for when I drive.


----------



## DVC (Mar 17, 2014)

tony20009 said:


> *Is this doom for traditional quartz watches? *IMO, almost certainly.
> 
> *Is this spelling doom for mechanical watches among typical consumers?* Quite possibly.


Tony, having read many of your posts on multiple forums (Bimmerpost ; ) I am quite surprised to read this.

As a fan of Android devices, I can concede that this wearable smart-watch will probably be priced quite competitively; it looks to be very functional in terms of its features and usability; and I bet it keeps really good time, too... but no smart watch will EVER replace a mechanical timepiece on my wrist! This gadget will have a limited role in the scope of network-connected personal devices; consumers are demanding bigger and bigger screens on their phones, and they're using them more and more like personal computers (heavy e-mail use, internet browsing, gaming and other apps that require two-hand use). Consumers also want simplicity; despite companies trying to get us to buy a second and third data-hungry device, most people would rather just have one device that meets all their needs.

Your predictions above almost sound like the early stages of the quartz crisis of the 80's, when cheap plastic quartz watches almost drove quality mechanical watches out of existence. But... they didn't! And the reason is because the appreciation of a fine watch, as I know you well-understand, is about so much more than pure functionality. I have faith that this appreciation is not something that will die-off with a particular generation any more than the appreciation of art, style, music, etc. I just can't see smart watches diminishing the passion that drives sales of mechanical watches today... without a doubt, your kids would appreciate one of your heirloom watches as a coming-of-age present much more than the latest cheap plastic disposable tech gadget that will most certainly be antiquated after 3-5 years.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

tony20009 said:


> Red:
> 
> Other:
> What I think will be most interesting is what traditional watchmakers will start offering Android based watches.
> ...


I'm not sure that most quartz watches compete with smart watches. They will either be much cheaper, or appeal to a different market. Maybe the 'mid-range' $200 - $500 quartz watches may dissapear, but the cheapies will be aroung for a long time yet. As for mechanicals, wasn't the quartz watch meant to be the end of them?

Out of interest, what features have you so excited about smart watches? For me my phone takes care of everything that these do.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Ace McLoud said:


> I'm not sure that most quartz watches compete with smart watches. They will either be much cheaper, or appeal to a different market. Maybe the 'mid-range' $200 - $500 quartz watches may dissapear, but the cheapies will be aroung for a long time yet. As for mechanicals, wasn't the quartz watch meant to be the end of them?
> 
> Out of interest, what features have you so excited about smart watches? For me my phone takes care of everything that these do.


I'm not keen on smart watches, but the watch in that video seems super cool to me and it seems all but steps away from being a category killer type of product.

All the best.


----------



## Nauticqua (Nov 27, 2013)

It's funny to me, because one day people will laugh about how everyone had these stupid devices they would reach into their pockets for, or wear on their wrists, to tell them the weather and give them directions. 
I bet in a hundred years or so, people will give birth and a mandatory module will be planted within the body. It will be receptive to electrical impulses the brain makes and It will be able to connect to the internet and update constantly. 
Then the government will program the modules and make everyone work crappy jobs and have to pay taxes. It will be terrible.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Nov 6, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> For me, my dislike of smart watches has far less to do with what they look like, and for more to do with what they represent. This obsessive need to remain connected, all the time, and through as many vehicles as possible - phones, computers, cars, tablets, and now watches.


This. I frequently turn off my iPhone to disconnect from things. I don't understand the need to have it connected to me via my wrist or my car or whatever new gadget they come up with next.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dpratt (Dec 18, 2008)

TheWalrus said:


> For me, my dislike of smart watches has far less to do with what they look like, and for more to do with what they represent. This obsessive need to remain connected, all the time, and through as many vehicles as possible - phones, computers, cars, tablets, and now watches.


I completely agree. There will always be a demand for the latest technology and connectivity, but I also think there is a saturation point where people don't necessarily want to be connected 24/7.

I've worked in the tech field for a number of years and I believe part of my interest in mechanical watches came about because they represent something more tangible. Everything is so disposable nowadays, be it a phone, computer, or any other fleeting gadget. It's nice to know that I can buy a quality watch now and enjoy it for decades to come.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

DVC said:


> Tony, having read many of your posts on multiple forums (Bimmerpost ; ) I am quite surprised to read this.
> 
> As a fan of Android devices, I can concede that this wearable smart-watch will probably be priced quite competitively; it looks to be very functional in terms of its features and usability; and I bet it keeps really good time, too... but no smart watch will EVER replace a mechanical timepiece on my wrist! This gadget will have a limited role in the scope of network-connected personal devices; consumers are demanding bigger and bigger screens on their phones, and they're using them more and more like personal computers (heavy e-mail use, internet browsing, gaming and other apps that require two-hand use). Consumers also want simplicity; despite companies trying to get us to buy a second and third data-hungry device, most people would rather just have one device that meets all their needs.
> 
> *Your predictions above almost sound like the early stages of the quartz crisis of the 80's*, when cheap plastic quartz watches almost drove quality mechanical watches out of existence. But... they didn't! And the reason is because *the appreciation of a fine watch, as I know you well-understand, is about so much more than pure functionality.* I have faith that this appreciation is not something that will die-off with a particular generation any more than the appreciation of art, style, music, etc. I just can't see smart watches diminishing the passion that drives sales of mechanical watches today... without a doubt, your kids would appreciate one of your heirloom watches as a coming-of-age present much more than the latest cheap plastic disposable tech gadget that will most certainly be antiquated after 3-5 years.


The thing I loathe most is having to accept now that I have not done what I knew back then that I should have.
- tony20009

First, I want to say I appreciate your thoughtful feedback and also, thank you for reading my posts. Thanks.

I think your predictions in the first paragraph has at least as good a chance of being right as any that anyone here, myself included, would make. There are a lot of ways in which this 'wearable" can evolve and a lot of them have more to do with vision -- both of makers and consumers -- than they do with pure practicality, or aesthetics. Vision about lifestyles, convenience, art, usability, the tradeoffs and more will all play into how well this thing does. What is very clear in my mind is that the Android "wearable" is far and away a better concept than any smartwatch I've see before it. It's the first one I can see offering enough that it could displace a mechanical watch from my wrist.

Red:
Yes. They do. Part of that is to spur discussion. Part of it is because I can see how this watch has the potential to be start of exactly that. As history shows us, every form of technology eventually gets superseded. The more basic the tech, the harder it is to uproot.

Cars displaced trains and horse and buggies. Planes relegated ocean liners to being "floating hotels in the middle of nowhere" whereas they were how one traveled the world. Email and text messaging have become preferred forms of "interpersonal communication." In contrast, it'll be a long time before the hammer can be replaced; it has evolved, but the substance and form of it is such that it's still looks like a hammer, and it'll be recognizable as a hammer to a reincarnated, 12th century blacksmith watching you or me use one. A hinge is another technology that'll be around for a very long time, but eventually all doors will work like those on the Spaceship Enterprise and won't need hinges.

Blue:
I agree with you about what watch appreciation is. All the same, I'm not going to wear a traditional and non-traditional watch. Having to choose, I'm going to wear the one that provides the greatest functionality and benefits to me as I go about my daily activities. I'm not suggesting that anyone, even myself, will necessarily stop appreciating watches for that is something very different from "using" a device on ones wrist. I appreciate the art in my home, but even the smallest ones I don't carry around with me.

What I think is at risk is not mechanical watch appreciation. I think watch selling as a viable business concern, as a segment of the retail consumer goods industry, is what's at risk. I think this Android portends (maybe) the end of mechanical watches as fashion accessories. As art forms that are appreciated by aficionados, I doubt much will change other than the variety available will decline and the 'weirdness" factor may increase, much as one sees in art. I don't know that I won't buy more mechanicals. I do know that how I think about what I buy will definitely change.

Less than 24-hours after learning of the "wearable," and seeing how compelling it is in comparison to its predecessors, I'm not ready to say how, but I'm not naive enough to think it won't. I just choose to put things on hold until I get the "lay of the land" rather than just plowing ahead. I won't say the "sky is falling," but I won't stick my head in the sand and pretend that it can't and won't.

As I intimated earlier, change brings opportunity. I want to consider what opportunity this Android thing may hold for my watch collecting future before I move ahead. I'm a management consultant, so looking at the big picture, identifying potential courses of action, the risk and plausible outcomes connected with each and then choosing one and making it happen is what I do for a living. I would do myself a disservice were I not to do the same for myself. I don't generally like to give out free business consulting, but I'll certainly give some to me. <winks and chuckles> There's no point in having better judgment if you won't listen to it. LOL

All the best.

Unfortunately, the clock is ticking, the hours are going by. The past increases, the future recedes. Possibilities decreasing, regrets mounting.
- Haruki Murakami, _Dance Dance Dance _


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

Nauticqua said:


> .....make everyone work crappy jobs and have to pay taxes. It will be terrible.


How will it be any different to today?


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

93EXCivic said:


> This. I frequently turn off my iPhone to disconnect from things. I don't understand the need to have it connected to me via my wrist or my car or whatever new gadget they come up with next.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I hear you. I still shake my head when recollecting that, on a recent car shopping trip with a good friend, the number one thing he looked for in a new car wasn't room, or fuel efficiency, or power, or reliability&#8230; but Facebook connectivity.

I sat down on a curb and wept. (figuratively)


----------



## novedl (May 20, 2009)

My reservation with the smartwatch remains the device power consumption; battery technology has simply not kept pace. Power constraints also happens to be the reason I have not purchased an electric automobile.


----------



## Nauticqua (Nov 27, 2013)

Ace McLoud said:


> How will it be any different to today?


Not everyone gets a joke.....Ace


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us.
- Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice 


What is all this about the fear of being "so connected?" Does the damn thing not have an "off" button?

I don't see how this Android is making you more connected than your existing smartphone. I do see how it's offering significantly more features and information than any watch can and putting them in a place that's as convenient as your watch. As far as I can see, the only real issue for consumers deals with what one might wear, not with what one might appreciate and enjoy no less for it's own merits. 

You don't have to wear a mechanical to appreciate one any more than you have to tote your Degas around with you if you appreciate fine art. If you appreciate horticulture do you make sure to wear/carry a plant/flower everywhere you go? Of course you don't. A lady I know is way, way into fancy lingerie and almost always were super hot looking stuff, even to work, but like each of the other examples before, it's a private conceit. Why do watches need to be any different?

The way some folks are going on, one would think that by wearing they can't wear and show off their WISdom (and -- yes, I'll say it -- for some the appearance of wealth) by wearing a mechanical watch of this or that make. Well, okay. So that's probably true, a watch could no longer be a thing one can easily -- without looking like a buffoon -- appreciate in a public way. So what? I'd ask though if one's WISdom needs to be a publicly displayed thing?

All the best.

Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man... It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition is gone, pride is gone.
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity


----------



## TheWalrus (Mar 16, 2009)

tony20009 said:


> Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us.
> - Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
> 
> What is all this about the fear of being "so connected?" Does the damn thing not have an "off" button?
> ...


Not quite sure where you're going with that. This isn't about 'fear'. It's about a weird obsession I see - addiction even - especially amongst my generation. Everyone is online, all the time. They're updating twitter, or Facebook, or any number of other social media sites constantly throughout the day. If you're not connected you miss out. If you're not online people worry. If you don't respond to a text or a post *almost* instantly, people get frustrated or slighted.

My issue isn't with social media itself. Or connectivity. It's with the increasingly absurd number of ways we access it. And the increasing expectation that we are connected all the time. Why do we need to be able to post on Facebook from our phone, our car, and our watch. Why would we want to?


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Ace McLoud said:


> How will it be any different to today?


:-! . . .


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

duplicate post


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

Nauticqua said:


> Not everyone gets a joke.....Ace


Aplologies, just been on FaceBook and a Videogame website where people post crazy things without a hint of irony. I forgot people are normal here........



tony20009 said:


> Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us.
> - Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
> 
> What is all this about the fear of being "so connected?" Does the damn thing not have an "off" button?
> ...


Constant connection and use of these devices is leading to real world mental and physiscal health issues.

Yes you can and should switch off, but when these devices aren't connected, they become a brick. Yes it may still tell the time, but so does a standard watch, so what makes it so special?

IMO, a watch really has to be worn to be fully appreciated, that's what differentiates it from a clock or sculpture, so yes, we need to wear tradditional watches to show our appreciation of them.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

TheWalrus said:


> Not quite sure where you're going with that. This isn't about 'fear'. It's about a weird obsession I see - addiction even - especially amongst my generation. Everyone is online, all the time. They're updating twitter, or Facebook, or any number of other social media sites constantly throughout the day. If you're not connected you miss out. If you're not online people worry. If you don't respond to a text or a post *almost* instantly, people get frustrated or slighted.
> 
> My issue isn't with social media itself. Or connectivity. It's with the increasingly absurd number of ways we access it. And the increasing expectation that we are connected all the time. Why do we need to be able to post on Facebook from our phone, our car, and our watch. Why would we want to?


There were two themes in that post and I can see why you were unclear where it was going....the thought crossed my mind too because I knew I hadn't connected the two ideas, but someone came to my office so I hit "Submit." I'm sorry.

The first bit was what it was about connectedness. The rest was my reaction to what seemed to be some of the implications of what I'd been reading in the thread.

All the best.

I am not the lonely human, plunked down on earth to aimlessly wander. I am a part of that earth and not going anywhere- just like the spider up in the corner, the dust on the sill, and the cat I buried in the backyard. -Jamaica Ritcher.
- Jay Allison, _This I Believe: The Personal Philosophies of Remarkable Men and Women _

Note: You don't need to read the rest of this; I know it's a lot to read. It's just me explaining the place I'm coming from and why the whole "connectedness/shunned" thing makes no more sense now reading from you than it did when all three of my kids tried to make sense of it. The whole connectedness/social media/"likes" phenomenon just strikes me as millions and millions of insecure people looking for something they aren't getting from the people who should be giving it to them. It just smacks of a lot of insecurity brought on by parents too preoccupied with something other than their children. I'm not a sociologist or psychologist so I know I'm not explaining myself as well as I'd like. I just ask that if you do read what follows, bear in mind that I'm not judging folks in general or you specifically. I'm just offering my own perspective.

*Connectedness:*
On the "connectedness" theme, I gotta tell you: I just don't get the whole point of being connected the way my kids are. I don't understand why people feel obliged to share so many, well, frankly mundane and boring details of their life as though it's "news worthy." I do have opinions about why social media has become such a dominant thing; however, this is probably not the best place to have a full on discussion about sociological topics such as belonging, and acceptance, increased pressure to make money, the shift in the distribution of income, the impact of women in the workplace and so many other factors that I feel have resulted in the social playing field we see today.

Suffice to say that were I writing a book about it, I'd title it _You Like Me._ _Right Now, You Really Like Me_. The subtitle would be: _The Emptiness of Achievement, Validation and Acceptance Acquired and Given Through Social Media. _(Folks who remember Sally Field's Oscar acceptance speech will understand the connection -- 



 -- the rest will have to read the book. LOL.)

I'm headed toward seniority, but even in my day, we had phones and phones were an important tech in everyone's life. In my time, however, if nobody answered the phone, there were only a few reasons why:

The line was busy (because they were on the phone or because they took it off the hook)
Nobody was home
They were occupied and couldn't answer when you called
People understood that you might have more going on in your life than waiting for the phone to ring, or as it is to day, the next text, tweet, update or email. (To tell you the truth, it was a good thing to be unavailable from time to time. That was how folks could tell you actually had a life and you gained respect as a result of that. LOL. "Oh, I'm sorry I missed your call. I was... [doing whatever].") I understand that the tech has changed; I see a good reason for why the nature of human interaction got altered with it. Now why it is that one who experiences the modern equivalent of an unanswered phone would feel shunned is beyond me. It strikes me as momentously insecure for them to feel that way.

My kids (17 - 21 years old) have told me on so many occasions "I have to take this." Or they've said, "Hang on. I have to reply to so and so." I'll just say that my kids now have their priorities in line and will not ever say something like that to me again. Whomever they are communicating with will wait or go straight to voice mail or whatever. If they feel shunned, well, so be it. They will wait until I'm done because the one thing they don't want to do is tick me off and have me respond to them. A few of my kids' friends have heard from me that 

my children have a life,
it does not revolve around their friends,
friends will patiently wait their turn to have some of my kids' time and attention, and
it is still within my power to bring an end to the relationship if they cannot abide by my rules.
I'm very "old school" in that regard. Other people's kids can be what they want to be, but they will not disrespect me or my kids so long as I'm providing for them. There's just no flexibility on that. Period.

I don't know how old one needs to be "old school" like me, but here's why I don't get why one should feel shunned over a message not being immediately responded to. Back when I was coming along, "radio silence" was what you got _after_ someone had told you to your face that they'd had enough of you. If you had the slightest modicum of self-respect, you just wouldn't call, but if you did, you'd just be hung up on immediately after "hello." People didn't seek confrontation, but they weren't emotional cowards either. You'd accept that you'd blundered somehow, learn a lesson from it and move on. The people whom you'd ticked off would, in return, respectfully avoid saying _anything _about you, good or bad, or your final interaction/conversation.

_Connectedness Conclusion:_
Just turn off the tech and live for a few hours or so, and do it when you aren't sleeping. <winks> Reclaim ownership and control of your time and your life. I know once my kids learned how to do that all that happened was they became more in demand. As silly as this may sound, take a lesson from Micro-Economics 101: apply the idea of maximum production under monopolistic competition to yourself. It works because you are the only provider on the planet of, well, you. If you are a decent person, creating a little bit of scarcity in the marketplace will increase your value. It works for watch companies; it'll work for you too.

You've heard of celebrities being "overexposed?" Well that's nothing more than failing to apply exactly that concept. And the constant tweeting and updating and texting and emailing and phoning, etc. is the same. It's over exposure. Decent people, smart people, fun people, interesting people don't have to try that hard and they don't. Lastly, if the folks in one's life are so fragile that an unanswered call or text or whatever is going to break their heart, perhaps it's time to find some more durable personalities to call friends.


----------



## mlcor (Oct 21, 2013)

Lots of interesting points here. Personally, I think these gadgets have a limited lifespan. Someone earlier posited a rather Orwellian future with implants mandated by the government a hundred years from now. My view is that we are probably much closer in time to something much smaller (implant or not) replacing the smart watch and rendering it obsolete. Ten years from now it will probably seem as geeky as carrying a 1980's brick phone around in its own case.

Having said that, I do wonder about interesting hybrids--how about a mechanical watch driving a small screen with three dimensional, life-like hologram displays of your favorite watch dial? Or one you've custom designed?


----------



## Andrew McGregor (Dec 27, 2011)

So, here's what I do with my Pebble: I have my phone configured to only send certain categories of notification to the watch in certain time windows. So, work email and IMs go there while I'm at work; pages as well when I'm oncall. But they stop outside work hours, and often enough I switch to a traditional watch then anyway.

The Pebble is a work tool; I don't very much like it as a watch, but then it is a) cheap and b) a very early product in this category.

Would I be using the 360 much the same way? Yes, but then it also feeds you interesting and useful other information (admittedly, I can do this with the Pebble too, in a less slick manner). Much like we have moonphase watches, a 360 can deliver that info and more, like the weather and travel times to interesting places.

One possibility is that these gadgets make it easier to get to in-person events under time pressure, and that can be a good thing.

But like all technologies, there's potential for things to get out of hand, so they need used thoughtfully.

Comparing the two, the Pebble is a 90s Nokia phone to the 360s current Android. We shall see what the iWatch is like, it might be fantastic or it might be an iPod on a strap. The 360 shows that an iPod on a strap is not the same thing as an accessory to a data center (the phone is just a way of getting the two to talk).


----------



## garublador (Feb 17, 2014)

What I think is funny about pretty much every single smartwatch thread is that in a forum of people who not only wear, but actually collect watches, they assume that if you have a smartwatch it's the only possible watch you could possibly wear. It's also funny that there's also the assumption that if you aren't using every feature all the time, then it's useless (because that helium valve is used so often by everyone with a Planet Ocean watch). They're certainly no less useful as a traditional watch as they can perform all of the same functions.

As long as the watches are cheap enough there's certainly times when people could find them very useful. For example, at work, a smart watch for me would be nearly useless. In fact, I'd be required to take it off periodically in situations where I could still wear a traditional watch (EMI testing). However, if I'm on vacation or on a family outing (especially in a vacation or outing where our group could be split up), having a smartwatch like that would be very useful. I'm sure anyone who does any sort of biking, which is pretty popular here, would find them very useful as well.

As for this specific watch, it seems like another great step in the right direction. The wearables API/OS seems like a really good idea assuming they implement it correctly. It makes a lot of sense to separate it from Android.


----------



## ManMachine (Jan 31, 2012)

Android wear and the upcoming iWatch would likely be game changers. They could make many things more convenient and still keep the watch elegant and simple at the desire of the owner. 

The Moto360 design is very nice, reminds me of Tuna and Puck. We are seeing the convergence of sophisticated software with the power of traditional hardware. I look forward to the day when I no longer need to fuss over the design of watch hands and indices - with hundreds of virtual designs to pick from and never another need to buy a homage.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

tony20009 said:


> What I think will be most interesting is what traditional watchmakers will start offering Android based watches.
> 
> *Is this doom for traditional quartz watches? * IMO, almost certainly.
> 
> *Is this spelling doom for mechanical watches among typical consumers?* Quite possibly.


We had this discussion 3 weeks ago It started with this:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/house-calibres-weve-been-conned-some-extent-988794-7.html#post7427924


Crunchy said:


> They do this because the watch companies think they don't have real competition for the wrist space.....
> Wait to see what happens when the iwatch is out, let's see if that will cause a second swiss watch crisis with the way things are going...


I won't repeat myself, but for the record, I think a new "quartz crysis" is quite possible, because luxury watches will have hard time competing for the one and only left wrist with functionaly far superior device.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> We had this discussion 3 weeks ago It started with this:
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f2/house-calibres-weve-been-conned-some-extent-988794-7.html#post7427924
> 
> I won't repeat myself, but for the record, I think a new "quartz crysis" is quite possible, because luxury watches will have hard time competing for the one and only left wrist with functionaly far superior device.


That was one crazy thread. I believe the smartwatch discussion was a huge thread diversion. Interesting though.

As to your second point, you're assuming, like others in that thread, that people buy luxury watches for their functionality. It's also a matter for debate that these features are 'useful'.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

Ace McLoud said:


> As to your second point, you're assuming, like others in that thread, that people buy luxury watches for their functionality. It's also a matter for debate that these features are 'useful'.


Wrong. People are not buying luxury watches for their functionality, far from it. But if you are forced to choose only one item, many will sacrifice the luxury decoration (or status symbol) for the sake of communication device. Let's pretend you have only one pocket (like you have only one left wrist) and you have to choose between pocket watch (because there are no wrist watches) and mobile phone. What do you think would win the race for your single pocket?


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> Wrong. People are not buying luxury watches for their functionality, far from it. But if you are forced to choose only one item, many will sacrifice the luxury decoration (or status symbol) for the sake of communication device. Let's pretend you have only one pocket (like you have only one left wrist) and you have to choose between pocket watch (because there are no wrist watches) and mobile phone. What do you think would win the race for your single pocket?


The mobile phone, easily, as it does all that a pocket watch does and more.

Now, if you have one pocket, and one left wrist, do you:

a) Carry a smartphone and wear a luxury watch? You have a device that has multiple functions and a nice peice of wrist jewelry.

b) Carry a smartphone and wear a smartwatch? You have two devices that share the same functions, one of which saves the two seconds it takes to remove your phone from your pocket on some occasions.


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

It really depends on the added functionality of the smart watch. So far the smart watch doesn't add much functionality, but in the near future things can change dramaticaly. For example it's not that hard to imagine using the smartwatch as a phone, for actually talking with others.


----------



## watermanxxl (Jul 12, 2013)

Looks like another product looking for a "problem" to solve... Seems like overkill; having something on your wrist that does the EXACT same thing as your phone. A well-made automatic timepiece will not go out of style; durability, dependability and the added benefit of operating WITHOUT any need for electricity. Besides, men like their machines; cars, boats, motorcycles, watches. things with engines are...dare I say...sexy. LoL. They may sell a few. May sell a lot... But, I don't see Smartwatchers derailing the "automatic renaissance" anytime soon.


----------



## Ace McLoud (Jun 28, 2013)

Okapi001 said:


> It really depends on the added functionality of the smart watch. So far the smart watch doesn't add much functionality, but in the near future things can change dramaticaly. For example it's not that hard to imagine using the smartwatch as a phone, for actually talking with others.


I don't ever see it replacing the phone TBH. The same companies that are behind this tech also have a stake in the mobile phone bsuiness. Why sell you one product when they can sell you one product and a host of accesssories?


----------



## urtenmurtel (Mar 8, 2013)

For me the wrist is a great place for quick glance but a terrible one for longer interactions, just considering how the attached hand hangs in the air. 
So I totally get the idea of an informative smart watch for, weather, schedules, timezones, reminders, blood pressure and hard rate (for the obsessed). 
For anything else: typing, reading, looking things up, talking it just seems like a worse and much less handy version of a smartphone, particularly given how those will be more versatile in shape and size soon anyway. No commercial however pretentious or stylish will convince me of the need to talk to my wrist or stare at it for lengthy times...


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Why do so many folks see this as an "either or" thing? About the closest I can get on the "either or" line is that I wear either the Android "wearable" or I wear a traditional wristwatch. I don't think it means *you or I* have to stop appreciating traditional watches. For folks who aren't into watches in the first place, yes, it could easily replace a traditional watch. But then those folks aren't into watches so I doubt that prospect bothers them.

For example, I now use a tablet more than I use a PC or laptop and I respond to as many emails via phone as I do via PC, tablet and laptop. I still prefer a standard PC keyboard and full sized monitor. I would rather have a machine with a proper video card and tons and tons of storage space and a super fast processor. Yet, a tablet's convenience is just too great to ignore. It's a hell of a lot easier to run through an airport with a tablet than with a laptop and it's easier to use one too. All the same, when I'm in my office, I stuff a laptop into a docking station. When I'm home, I sit at the PC.

I'm not sure if the "wearable" can replace a phone. Indeed, the first statement was, "Android Wear _extends _the Android platform to wearable." I don't see that as meaning "replace my phone" language. At best, I think it's meant to compliment a phone/phablet by offloading from the phone the tasks/information presentations that don't need the larger screen real-estate of a phone. For example, they illustrate a text message, but not an email. They don't show web browsing, picture taking, etc.

All the best.

An old dream with a shiny new veneer. It's fascinating, you know, how an obsolete madness is sometimes adopted and stylized in an attempt to ghoulishly preserve it. These are the days of second-hand fantasies and antiquated hysteria. 
- Thomas Ligotti, _The Nightmare Factory_, "The Chymist"


----------



## ManMachine (Jan 31, 2012)

the way android wear is designed is right: functionality at a quick glance, just like regular watches. This would be very helpful for outdoor activities, such as skiing (no longer have to freeze my fingers off) hiking, maybe useful for team sports.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Okapi001 (Apr 9, 2013)

tony20009 said:


> Why do so many folks see this as an "either or" thing? About the closest I can get on the "either or" line is that I wear either the Android "wearable" or I wear a traditional wristwatch. I don't think it means *you or I* have to stop appreciating traditional watches.


Of course, you can still have a large collection of traditional watches at home, in a box. But collectors alone cannot save Swiss (mechanical/luxury) watch industry. You can even compare the "battle" between traditional and smart watches to the battle between pocket and wrist watches. There were always collectors of pocket watches (and there are still a few manufacturers) , but as a whole a pocket watch industry is all but gone.


----------

