3 ms·
Do you really need to update every second? Plenty of clocks have only an hour and minute hand.
by ForHackernews 7y ago
Do you really need to update every second? Plenty of clocks have only an hour and minute hand.
- lucb1e 7y agoAs one data point, I frequently look at the second indicator on my phone or laptop (I configured both to show one at all times), but even nerdy colleagues tell me that's just me, so that's probably just me. I think I'd be fine with having to tap my wristwatch to update the display. It would be cool if it could just show seconds without tapping, but if having to tap means the difference between a few days of battery life and months of battery life (I'm on a computer most of the day so it would wake only a few times a day), then sure.
- Mathnerd314 7y agoOnce you're fine with tapping to update the display, you might as well just use a non-E-ink display, keep it turned off most of the time, and turn it on to use it, since that's one tap.
- lucb1e 7y agoI guess that's true, I didn't think of that while writing.
- andoma 7y agoNo, It's not just you.
- m-p-3 7y agoI guess you would have to, if you want to have a playback indicator. You wouldn't have to refresh the whole screen to gradually fill up the bar, as the ghosting effect would be negligible.
- hanniabu 7y agoNote that this is a smartwatch, not a digital watch. Using eInk would prevent the use of apps on the watch if the refresh rate is once every few seconds.
- icebraining 7y agoAn eInk display can refresh much faster than that, it's just that you can't keep refreshing so fast if you want to spend less energy than an LCD would. But you could adjust dynamically depending on the current use.