5 ms·

3 million dollars and they can't hire an industrial designer to make it look like something other than a preschool toy? They feel like a bunch of developers com

by lnanek2 12y ago

3 million dollars and they can't hire an industrial designer to make it look like something other than a preschool toy? They feel like a bunch of developers competing against Apple. No offense intended, I'm a developer myself. I think they'll have more and better features, since that is how developers think, but you need to look good to really capture all the consumers.

snissn 12y ago
They've sold over a million watches at a retail price of $100-$200
freehunter 12y ago
Have you ever seen a normal watch? Like a Wal-Mart, off-the-shelf Timex? They're hideous. Absolutely atrocious. If people want a nice looking watch, they buy a Rolex or a Tag. What people get from a Timex is a functional watch that is easy to read, relatively oops-resistant (can take some damage and go under water without breaking), and has some features they really need. A $500 Rolex probably doesn't have a stopwatch with a lap counter, but that $10 Timex sure does. There's precedent in the watch-world to not care what the watch looks like. Watches are not always fashion items, which is why the watch section exists in Wal Mart. I keep hearing people say "it doesn't look as nice as the Apple Watch or Android Wear" (personally, the Apple Watch looks awful), but if you're looking for features over fashion, this is the device for you.
- eitally 12y ago
  What are you blabbering on about? There are plenty of good looking cheap watches, just not watches that are aiming at the same buyers as Richemont/Swatch/LVMH do. If you want to complain justifiable, point your disdain at Invicta and their ilk.
- swang 12y ago
  Eh, for $10 you take what you can get. For ~$200 I don't need expensive materials but I would like it to not look like what it looks like. This double bezel thing is kinda ugly. I mean if you spend $20 more from the $10 Timex you can get a Timex Weekend, which looks pretty nice.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    It's all relative to the market. The original Pebble is $100. Compare that to the LG G Watch R at $300. Going to the LG, you get a nicer looking watch but you lose more than six days of battery life, you lose cross-platform functionality, and you lose the ruggedness that the Pebble has. That was my point. If you want a nice looking smartwatch, they exist as long as you can handle the tradeoffs.
    - swang 12y ago
      Good design does not mean expensive design. It's not a comparison to the LG watch or the Moto watch. And this thing is ~$200; not $100, so comparing the original pebble to the LG G is a dishonest comparison anyways. Also the original pebble was a better design than this thing and it had way more leeway of not looking nice since it was such a niche product at the time. I love the UI/UX concept they're going for with the timeline but I would not want to wear this watch. It just sticks out too much like a computer on your wrist.
- nols 12y ago
  A $10 watch and a several hundred dollar smart watch are two very different animals. When Pebble first came out it was new and innovative so first adopters bought it regardless of appearance. Now they're competing in a field that's getting more competitive every day. The poster isn't saying they should trade functionality for appearance, they're saying Pebble should at least put some effort towards design to appeal to the non-first adopters who care at least a little about appearance. PS used low end Rolex watches start at several thousand
  - freehunter 12y ago
    I guess that goes to show what I know about the watch market. One of the other guys who responded with a bunch of watch manufacturers had the gall to accuse me of blabbering, when I barely understood half the words he said. At any rate, I don't think the smartwatch market is getting more competitive. All we're seeing is the same watch being released over and over again by Samsung, Motorola, LG, and Apple. Exact same watch. Touchscreen (for no reason), all glass and metal (when we have that on phones, we wrap it in plastic and rubber), and a 12 hour battery life. They're putting a smartphone on your wrist, but worse. There's no one competing with Pebble, who is developing actual smart watches. They had the Pebble Steel, and there's nothing saying they won't make a Steel version of this one, too.
- username223 12y ago
  A little correction from someone who happens to wear one: An actual Timex will probably run you $30-50, depending on how good a deal you find. Walmart knockoffs are cheaper, but much less durable; I bought one once, and the face was almost unreadably scratched within a month. It's not a piece of jewelry, i.e. a status symbol, but it's comfortable, inconspicuous, and functional. It gives me the date and time at a glance, is accurate, times things, and has an alarm. I can strap it on my wrist and forget about it, because it lasts years on a single battery, and endures in the face of dust, water, scrapes, and bumps. I actually think Pebble is going in the right direction here, with longer battery life and color e-ink, but smart watches have a long ways to go before they can compete with plain old digital watches. I have to worry about charging and protecting my phone, as I would with a smart watch, but my current dumb-watch is entirely worry-free.
bhousel 12y ago
Out of curiosity, how much do you think it costs to hire a top industrial design firm?
- Domenic_S 12y ago
  Divided by a couple million watches? Like $5...
agentultra 12y ago
I like the look of it and I like the look of my original KS-edition Pebble. It's plain, muted and functional. I bought it for functionality and not as a status symbol. There are far better watches for that. It seems to me that Pebble knows their audience and that their choice of design wasn't due to a lack of industrial design experience.

by lnanek2 12y ago

snissn 12y ago

They've sold over a million watches at a retail price of $100-$200

freehunter 12y ago

Have you ever seen a normal watch? Like a Wal-Mart, off-the-shelf Timex? They're hideous. Absolutely atrocious. If people want a nice looking watch, they buy a Rolex or a Tag. What people get from a Timex is a functional watch that is easy to read, relatively oops-resistant (can take some damage and go under water without breaking), and has some features they really need. A $500 Rolex probably doesn't have a stopwatch with a lap counter, but that $10 Timex sure does. There's precedent in the watch-world to not care what the watch looks like. Watches are not always fashion items, which is why the watch section exists in Wal Mart. I keep hearing people say "it doesn't look as nice as the Apple Watch or Android Wear" (personally, the Apple Watch looks awful), but if you're looking for features over fashion, this is the device for you.

eitally 12y ago
What are you blabbering on about? There are plenty of good looking cheap watches, just not watches that are aiming at the same buyers as Richemont/Swatch/LVMH do. If you want to complain justifiable, point your disdain at Invicta and their ilk.
swang 12y ago
Eh, for $10 you take what you can get. For ~$200 I don't need expensive materials but I would like it to not look like what it looks like. This double bezel thing is kinda ugly. I mean if you spend $20 more from the $10 Timex you can get a Timex Weekend, which looks pretty nice.
- freehunter 12y ago
  It's all relative to the market. The original Pebble is $100. Compare that to the LG G Watch R at $300. Going to the LG, you get a nicer looking watch but you lose more than six days of battery life, you lose cross-platform functionality, and you lose the ruggedness that the Pebble has. That was my point. If you want a nice looking smartwatch, they exist as long as you can handle the tradeoffs.
  - swang 12y ago
    Good design does not mean expensive design. It's not a comparison to the LG watch or the Moto watch. And this thing is ~$200; not $100, so comparing the original pebble to the LG G is a dishonest comparison anyways. Also the original pebble was a better design than this thing and it had way more leeway of not looking nice since it was such a niche product at the time. I love the UI/UX concept they're going for with the timeline but I would not want to wear this watch. It just sticks out too much like a computer on your wrist.
nols 12y ago
A $10 watch and a several hundred dollar smart watch are two very different animals. When Pebble first came out it was new and innovative so first adopters bought it regardless of appearance. Now they're competing in a field that's getting more competitive every day. The poster isn't saying they should trade functionality for appearance, they're saying Pebble should at least put some effort towards design to appeal to the non-first adopters who care at least a little about appearance. PS used low end Rolex watches start at several thousand
- freehunter 12y ago
  I guess that goes to show what I know about the watch market. One of the other guys who responded with a bunch of watch manufacturers had the gall to accuse me of blabbering, when I barely understood half the words he said. At any rate, I don't think the smartwatch market is getting more competitive. All we're seeing is the same watch being released over and over again by Samsung, Motorola, LG, and Apple. Exact same watch. Touchscreen (for no reason), all glass and metal (when we have that on phones, we wrap it in plastic and rubber), and a 12 hour battery life. They're putting a smartphone on your wrist, but worse. There's no one competing with Pebble, who is developing actual smart watches. They had the Pebble Steel, and there's nothing saying they won't make a Steel version of this one, too.
username223 12y ago
A little correction from someone who happens to wear one: An actual Timex will probably run you $30-50, depending on how good a deal you find. Walmart knockoffs are cheaper, but much less durable; I bought one once, and the face was almost unreadably scratched within a month. It's not a piece of jewelry, i.e. a status symbol, but it's comfortable, inconspicuous, and functional. It gives me the date and time at a glance, is accurate, times things, and has an alarm. I can strap it on my wrist and forget about it, because it lasts years on a single battery, and endures in the face of dust, water, scrapes, and bumps. I actually think Pebble is going in the right direction here, with longer battery life and color e-ink, but smart watches have a long ways to go before they can compete with plain old digital watches. I have to worry about charging and protecting my phone, as I would with a smart watch, but my current dumb-watch is entirely worry-free.

bhousel 12y ago

Out of curiosity, how much do you think it costs to hire a top industrial design firm?

Domenic_S 12y ago
Divided by a couple million watches? Like $5...

agentultra 12y ago

I like the look of it and I like the look of my original KS-edition Pebble. It's plain, muted and functional. I bought it for functionality and not as a status symbol. There are far better watches for that. It seems to me that Pebble knows their audience and that their choice of design wasn't due to a lack of industrial design experience.