3 ms·
Because that's just a lightweight version of an old technology. No new value is being added here. Had this watch provided, say, some smartwatch features mechani
by sedatk 4y ago
Because that's just a lightweight version of an old technology. No new value is being added here. Had this watch provided, say, some smartwatch features mechanically (such as an analog heart monitor, or an analog altimeter etc) I might have found it interesting despite the technology still being old. This feels like just a flex on contemporary manufacturing capabilities. They just spent more money than everyone else.
- adhesive_wombat 4y agoIndeed, it's a bit like finding it hard to get all that hyped up about the latest Intel i9 whatever-K. Sure it's objectively a monstrous amount of processing on a sliver of matter (just like the one before it), but it's "just" throwing more transistors and fab at the same thing as the [whatever-1]-K. And then this is basically just an "if you know, you know" flex for a rich person. At least the incremental CPU "tick" or "tock" was somewhat useful, even if the -K variant is not especially useful in the general case.
- lgvld 4y agoMaybe we shouldn’t be pushig that hard towards reducing the size of processors/transistors?
- sedatk 4y agoIf we're doing it for aesthetics, I agree, we shouldn't.