5 ms·

there's a reason the wrist watch replaced the pocket watch.

slantyyz 12y ago
>> there's a reason the wrist watch replaced the pocket watch. The funny thing is that I stopped wearing wrist watches when phones started fitting in my pocket. So my phone, while having extra features, isn't very different from a pocket watch. And if there are a lot of people like me, you can make the argument that the pocket (or purse) watch subsequently replaced the wrist watch.
- Kiro 12y ago
  It's a cyclic evolution. Pocket watch to wrist watch to pocket phone to wrist phone. With technological breakthroughs practicality has to take one step back before catching up again.
  - greiskul 12y ago
    Well, but screen size is an issue with "wrist phone". People like being able to watch videos, and reading stuff on their : "pocket phones". If anything, phone screens have been getting bigger.
    - Kiro 12y ago
      Holographic displays.
- aninhumer 12y ago
  Well yeah, the smart pocket watch obviously trumps the dumb wrist watch. The point here is that now the wrist watch is smart again, it is likely to take over again for the same reasons it beat the pocket watch the first time. EDIT: To clarify, I'm not saying they'll completely replace smartphones, just that enough features can be moved to the wrist to make it worth wearing.
  - slantyyz 12y ago
    >> just that enough features can be moved to the wrist to make it worth wearing. I'm afraid it's not quite so simple as that. It also has to be more than simply worth wearing. * It has to be worth adding to the pile of devices that you're managing (remembering to charge, remembering to wear, connecting to your phone, security settings, etc). * It has to be worth taking up another USB port in your charger (since it's not using a lightning or micro USB port) * It has to be worth taking up more space on your nightstand for charging. While I see a lot of benefits for sporty/health types and FOMO-afflicted notification addicts, I'm not so sure it's going to eat up the market the same way the iPhone and iPad did.
CamperBob2 12y ago
People didn't live, eat, work, and sleep within 12 feet of 5 different clocks back then.
- nilkn 12y ago
  Of course, if they had, then they wouldn't have worn watches at all, just like most folks today do not wear watches for anything other than fashion. This doesn't in any way contest his point.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Sure it does. The fact that clocks weren't as ubiquitous provided an incentive to move the "personal clock" to the wrist, where it would be easier to check. Pocket watches wouldn't have been replaced by wristwatches in the modern world; they would simply have vanished.
    - nilkn 12y ago
      If anything, your argument advocates for smartwatches. When I get a notification and I'm not physically at a desktop computer, there is no way for me to check that notification other than my phone. It's the exact same problem that you just wrote about pocket watches, except it's not about the time -- it's about all the other information that we now want instant access to and can only get by removing a physical device from our pockets.
CamperBob2 12y ago
People didn't live, eat, work, and sleep within 12 feet of 5 different clocks back then.

>> there's a reason the wrist watch replaced the pocket watch. The funny thing is that I stopped wearing wrist watches when phones started fitting in my pocket. So my phone, while having extra features, isn't very different from a pocket watch. And if there are a lot of people like me, you can make the argument that the pocket (or purse) watch subsequently replaced the wrist watch.

Kiro 12y ago
It's a cyclic evolution. Pocket watch to wrist watch to pocket phone to wrist phone. With technological breakthroughs practicality has to take one step back before catching up again.
- greiskul 12y ago
  Well, but screen size is an issue with "wrist phone". People like being able to watch videos, and reading stuff on their : "pocket phones". If anything, phone screens have been getting bigger.
  - Kiro 12y ago
    Holographic displays.
aninhumer 12y ago
Well yeah, the smart pocket watch obviously trumps the dumb wrist watch. The point here is that now the wrist watch is smart again, it is likely to take over again for the same reasons it beat the pocket watch the first time. EDIT: To clarify, I'm not saying they'll completely replace smartphones, just that enough features can be moved to the wrist to make it worth wearing.
- slantyyz 12y ago
  >> just that enough features can be moved to the wrist to make it worth wearing. I'm afraid it's not quite so simple as that. It also has to be more than simply worth wearing. * It has to be worth adding to the pile of devices that you're managing (remembering to charge, remembering to wear, connecting to your phone, security settings, etc). * It has to be worth taking up another USB port in your charger (since it's not using a lightning or micro USB port) * It has to be worth taking up more space on your nightstand for charging. While I see a lot of benefits for sporty/health types and FOMO-afflicted notification addicts, I'm not so sure it's going to eat up the market the same way the iPhone and iPad did.

CamperBob2 12y ago

People didn't live, eat, work, and sleep within 12 feet of 5 different clocks back then.

nilkn 12y ago
Of course, if they had, then they wouldn't have worn watches at all, just like most folks today do not wear watches for anything other than fashion. This doesn't in any way contest his point.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Sure it does. The fact that clocks weren't as ubiquitous provided an incentive to move the "personal clock" to the wrist, where it would be easier to check. Pocket watches wouldn't have been replaced by wristwatches in the modern world; they would simply have vanished.
  - nilkn 12y ago
    If anything, your argument advocates for smartwatches. When I get a notification and I'm not physically at a desktop computer, there is no way for me to check that notification other than my phone. It's the exact same problem that you just wrote about pocket watches, except it's not about the time -- it's about all the other information that we now want instant access to and can only get by removing a physical device from our pockets.

CamperBob2 12y ago

People didn't live, eat, work, and sleep within 12 feet of 5 different clocks back then.