4 ms·

"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.

"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.

microtherion 8y ago
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.
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  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.
  - microtherion 8y ago
    > 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...
    - scottlocklin 8y ago
      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.
      - microtherion 8y ago
        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 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK7KPw9bLfI or their wrist straps https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/hodinkee-apple-watch-review https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/hodinkee-apple-watch-revie... then I don't know what "artistry" and "skill" are supposed to mean.
        scottlocklin 8y ago
        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.
- vinay427 8y ago
  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.
  - microtherion 8y ago
    > 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-accuracy-standards-2956666.html https://forums.watchuseek.com/f419/jaeger-lecoultre-watch-ac...
- dawidw 8y ago
  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.

microtherion 8y ago

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.

scottlocklin 8y ago
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.
- microtherion 8y ago
  > 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...
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    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.
    - microtherion 8y ago
      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 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK7KPw9bLfI or their wrist straps https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/hodinkee-apple-watch-review https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/hodinkee-apple-watch-revie... then I don't know what "artistry" and "skill" are supposed to mean.
      - scottlocklin 8y ago
        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.
vinay427 8y ago
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.
- microtherion 8y ago
  > 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-accuracy-standards-2956666.html https://forums.watchuseek.com/f419/jaeger-lecoultre-watch-ac...
dawidw 8y ago
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.