3 ms·

Hmmmmmmmm. I've always been a fan of the classic Casio aesthetic, and I want to want it, but this is a strange point in the functionality-vs-price space. A bas

by Retr0id 2mo ago

Hmmmmmmmm. I've always been a fan of the classic Casio aesthetic, and I want to want it, but this is a strange point in the functionality-vs-price space. A base F-91W costs less than half that, and my phone can already track steps with reasonable reliability. An entry-level fitbit costs about the same and monitors way more stats including heart rate, SpO2. Worse battery life and appearance, but if I wanted that featureset it's probably what I'd get.

slumberlust 2mo ago
Some of us prefer looser fitting bands. Most of smart watch features are useless unless you strap it down tight. I'd bite on something like this if the form factor wasn't off.
CTDOCodebases 2mo ago
Simple smart watches make sense for people who want accurate time who don't want to pull their phone out of their pocket for things that can be answered by looking at their wrist.
stkdump 2mo ago
I recently thought I could probably go back to a not-smart watch to not have to charge the watch all the time, but I don't want to deal with setting the time regularly either due to quartz drift and dst. So a bluetooth watch with two years of battery life doesn't sound like a bad idea really.
- TonyStr 2mo ago
  Even cheap quartz movements tend to drift by ±10 seconds per year, so you'd only really set it at dst. Maybe you're thinking about automatic watches which can drift by several seconds per day, and stop if you don't use it for 24/48/X amount hours. I have to set my automatic quite frequently
  - stkdump 2mo ago
    It is usually 10-15s per month. And the annoying thing is you have to notice it and I prefer a watch that I don't have to double check.
    - TonyStr 2mo ago
      You're right, I looked it up - it's per month for cheap watches. My bad!
  - maratc 2mo ago
    ±10 seconds per year would be quite an expensive quartz movement. To be that reliable anywhere it should be thermocompensated, too. This is the range of Grand Seiko 9F, Citizen Chronomaster, or Bulova Precisionist.
  - quickthrowman 2mo ago
    +/- 10 seconds a year for a quartz watch isn’t cheap. A Grand Seiko or Citizen high-accuracy quartz watch costs around $3,000 for the most basic models. A cheap quartz watch is an order of magnitude less accurate, which is still more accurate than a Rolex .
mrweasel 2mo ago
I'll probably be in the minority, but my phone can't track my steps, because I don't have it with me all the time, but my watch is on my wrist. The fitbit requires a Google account, so that's going to be a big no. The Casio might also require an account, I can't tell. The Fitbit has 10 days battery life, the Casio, 2 years. The price is a bit high, it is basically just a watch with a step counter. I'd also argue that people who buy Casio watches might have multiple watches they switch between, so you'd only put this on when you want to count your steps, and in that case there are better and cheaper options.
bean469 2mo ago
> and my phone can already track steps with reasonable reliability Perhaps, but not everyone carries their phone around with them all the time

by Retr0id 2mo ago

slumberlust 2mo ago

Some of us prefer looser fitting bands. Most of smart watch features are useless unless you strap it down tight. I'd bite on something like this if the form factor wasn't off.

CTDOCodebases 2mo ago

Simple smart watches make sense for people who want accurate time who don't want to pull their phone out of their pocket for things that can be answered by looking at their wrist.

stkdump 2mo ago

I recently thought I could probably go back to a not-smart watch to not have to charge the watch all the time, but I don't want to deal with setting the time regularly either due to quartz drift and dst. So a bluetooth watch with two years of battery life doesn't sound like a bad idea really.

TonyStr 2mo ago
Even cheap quartz movements tend to drift by ±10 seconds per year, so you'd only really set it at dst. Maybe you're thinking about automatic watches which can drift by several seconds per day, and stop if you don't use it for 24/48/X amount hours. I have to set my automatic quite frequently
- stkdump 2mo ago
  It is usually 10-15s per month. And the annoying thing is you have to notice it and I prefer a watch that I don't have to double check.
  - TonyStr 2mo ago
    You're right, I looked it up - it's per month for cheap watches. My bad!
- maratc 2mo ago
  ±10 seconds per year would be quite an expensive quartz movement. To be that reliable anywhere it should be thermocompensated, too. This is the range of Grand Seiko 9F, Citizen Chronomaster, or Bulova Precisionist.
- quickthrowman 2mo ago
  +/- 10 seconds a year for a quartz watch isn’t cheap. A Grand Seiko or Citizen high-accuracy quartz watch costs around $3,000 for the most basic models. A cheap quartz watch is an order of magnitude less accurate, which is still more accurate than a Rolex .

mrweasel 2mo ago

I'll probably be in the minority, but my phone can't track my steps, because I don't have it with me all the time, but my watch is on my wrist. The fitbit requires a Google account, so that's going to be a big no. The Casio might also require an account, I can't tell. The Fitbit has 10 days battery life, the Casio, 2 years. The price is a bit high, it is basically just a watch with a step counter. I'd also argue that people who buy Casio watches might have multiple watches they switch between, so you'd only put this on when you want to count your steps, and in that case there are better and cheaper options.

bean469 2mo ago

> and my phone can already track steps with reasonable reliability Perhaps, but not everyone carries their phone around with them all the time