3 ms·
SwatchOS: Not a Smart Decision
- robobro 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time anyone remember this?
- petre 10y agoYes, it was a pretty cool idea.
- alphabettsy 10y agoNot me.
- gregman1 10y agoI do! Is there any good article that explains the idea and failure of this project?
- X-Istence 10y agoPebble had its own OS, the various fitness trackers have their own OS, I don't necessarily see things as grim as the author makes them out to be. Especially if it lets the device last longer than 24-48 hours on a single charge.
- marekgro 10y agoPebble is dead anyway.
- mixedCase 10y agoI will never use a smartwatch that won't last 4-5 days without charging. It is the sole reason I gave in and got a Pebble; and now that my watch's hardware broke and the company was absorbed, I don't plan on buying another smartwatch unless I get an offer as good as that. To achieve what they did, Pebble went with a low resolution screen and a low-power microcontroller with their own OS. If Swatch wants to do the same, they have my attention.
- thehoff 10y agoI had the Pebble until they were absorbed and my watch just started having all kinds of issues. Replaced it with the Forerunner 630 (for a steal at $200). While not really a smartwatch (its geared towards runners) it does what I want. Notifications, vibrating alarm, customizable faces, tracks my steps, tracks my sleeping. And it can go at least 12 days off a charge if just doing the above (no GPS tracking). I charged at 30% so you could probably get another 4-5 days out of that 30%.
- Gys 10y agoWith that kind of ambition, Swatch really missed their best change on accomplishing it: they should have bought Pebble. Maybe they kind still buy relevant parts...