3 ms·
If I want a watch, I want a $20 Timex beater that will go until it is physically smashed up or the battery dies years later. Not a very expensive, fragile, fid
by douche 10y ago
If I want a watch, I want a $20 Timex beater that will go until it is physically smashed up or the battery dies years later. Not a very expensive, fragile, fiddly, power-hungry gizmo.
- heywire 10y agoAnd that is exactly why I think the industry messed up by calling them smart watches. Telling the time is probably one of the least important things these devices do. If all you need is a way to tell the time, one of these devices would be a huge waste of money and inconvenience.
- MBCook 10y agoWhat else would you call them though? Calling it a watch makes it very clear where you're intended to wear it and that it will always be there.
- heywire 10y agoI think the category of "wearables" does a better job of describing them, but you're right, I'm not sure I have a better name. Honestly, I don't think I'd really care if mine didn't even tell the time. Then again, I've just never been one to wear a wristwatch.
- MBCook 10y agoI'd say watches are a subset of wearables. Thing like the FitBit I had (which you could clip on your belt, keep in your pocket, etc.) was well described by 'wearables', but we have a more accurate term available for the Apple Watch or Moto 360.
- zgramana 10y agoIt will be interesting to see if people eventually normalize 'smart watch' into 'watch' and old school watches become referred to separately as 'timepieces' (for example).
- MBCook 10y agoI can tell you I don't refer to mine as a smartwatch.