3 ms·

The word "movement" for a watch movement is old. Ditto for "complication". Or "calibre". They come from the late 1700s and early 1800s. They were the normal

by mlyle 2y ago

The word "movement" for a watch movement is old. Ditto for "complication". Or "calibre". They come from the late 1700s and early 1800s. They were the normal words for the items described. They only sound fancy now that they have fallen into disuse. Actually, ditto for bespoke, now that you mention it.

pixelpoet 2y ago
Real perspective shift from your comment, thanks! Reading more about usage of those terms now, but I still can't help but feel there's a deliberate "fancypants nonstandard language" signalling going on in the marketing of these "timepieces". There's an easy parallel to make with the audiophile industry, which uses all kinds of colourful but ultimately vacuous language.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > can't help but feel there's a deliberate "fancypants nonstandard language" signalling going on in the marketing of these "timepieces" You’re reverting to your priors despite evidence to the contrary.
  - mlyle 2y ago
    > You’re reverting to your priors despite evidence to the contrary. Eh, I don't think what he's saying now is unreasonable. Certainly no one feels a pressure to use a modern term that might have less perceived value-- to say "functions" or "features" instead of "complications." A big part of the product of a fancy watch, or a bespoke suit, is the traditions. When tradition or sounding fancy is opposed to accessibility, the former will win.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > no one feels a pressure to use a modern term that might have less perceived value-- to say "functions" or "features" instead of "complications Methods in OOP. Every term in functional programming. Rolex does a little bit of the Apple game, renaming jargon. But the watch industry mostly uses the term the first person to use it deployed. (“Complications” makes more sense than “features” when working multilingual across French, German and Italian.) I’d also argue that “features” is a bit misleading. Complications aren’t about utility. They’re about art. It’s intentionally overcomplicating something.
      - mlyle 2y ago
        > Complications aren’t about utility. They’re about art. It’s intentionally overcomplicating something. This is not the original usage; "complication" does not imply "grande complication." > ..."features"... None of your criticism applies to "functions" which is the first term used. > Methods in OOP. Every term in functional programming. Yes... I'm saying in a niche, luxury industry based upon exclusivity and tradition, the marketing pushes towards old, foreign, and exotic language. All these things in commodity digital watches are "modules" and "functions" instead of "calibre" and "complications." (With Apple, on the high end, choosing "complication" for some reason ;).
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  What else would you call a watch movement? That’s just what it’s called, there’s no less fancy word for it.

by mlyle 2y ago

pixelpoet 2y ago

Real perspective shift from your comment, thanks! Reading more about usage of those terms now, but I still can't help but feel there's a deliberate "fancypants nonstandard language" signalling going on in the marketing of these "timepieces". There's an easy parallel to make with the audiophile industry, which uses all kinds of colourful but ultimately vacuous language.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> can't help but feel there's a deliberate "fancypants nonstandard language" signalling going on in the marketing of these "timepieces" You’re reverting to your priors despite evidence to the contrary.
- mlyle 2y ago
  > You’re reverting to your priors despite evidence to the contrary. Eh, I don't think what he's saying now is unreasonable. Certainly no one feels a pressure to use a modern term that might have less perceived value-- to say "functions" or "features" instead of "complications." A big part of the product of a fancy watch, or a bespoke suit, is the traditions. When tradition or sounding fancy is opposed to accessibility, the former will win.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > no one feels a pressure to use a modern term that might have less perceived value-- to say "functions" or "features" instead of "complications Methods in OOP. Every term in functional programming. Rolex does a little bit of the Apple game, renaming jargon. But the watch industry mostly uses the term the first person to use it deployed. (“Complications” makes more sense than “features” when working multilingual across French, German and Italian.) I’d also argue that “features” is a bit misleading. Complications aren’t about utility. They’re about art. It’s intentionally overcomplicating something.
    - mlyle 2y ago
      > Complications aren’t about utility. They’re about art. It’s intentionally overcomplicating something. This is not the original usage; "complication" does not imply "grande complication." > ..."features"... None of your criticism applies to "functions" which is the first term used. > Methods in OOP. Every term in functional programming. Yes... I'm saying in a niche, luxury industry based upon exclusivity and tradition, the marketing pushes towards old, foreign, and exotic language. All these things in commodity digital watches are "modules" and "functions" instead of "calibre" and "complications." (With Apple, on the high end, choosing "complication" for some reason ;).
School-Cotton 2y ago
What else would you call a watch movement? That’s just what it’s called, there’s no less fancy word for it.