Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 27th Dec 2012 15:50 UTC
Apple "According to Chinese gadget news site Tech.163, Apple may be in the process of developing its own smart watch that connects to your Apple devices via Bluetooth. Based on the report, Intel will be working with Apple to create the smart watch, with a 1.5-inch PMOLED display made by RiTDisplays with ITO-coated glass." It must be the holiday lull. I'm this close to putting this in the joke category.
Order by: Score:
Fail or Joke
by Casey99 on Thu 27th Dec 2012 16:41 UTC
Casey99
Member since:
2011-07-14

It has to be a joke. Either that or Apple has lost their minds. It would be a nearly useless gadget with a hefty price. What market is there for such a device? No serious watch collector or buyer will want such a device. It's not the Apple logo or digital technology that drives watches. Especially not one made in China. Your average teen crowd wouldn't want one. They don't want to wear a watch, regardless of what it does. And 1.5" screen? It is going to be clunky at best. Especially when it comes to women's watches.

ITO-coated glass? Lame. Sapphire is where it's at. Even touch sapphire.

Edited 2012-12-27 16:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Fail or Joke
by Laurence on Fri 28th Dec 2012 10:47 UTC in reply to "Fail or Joke"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Fail or Joke

It's neither, it's an Apple-related rumour so completely made up.

Stories like these are a tail of Chinese whispers and pub gossip. In fact this is probably nothing more than the next edition of the iPod nano that has been so warped out of context that it bares no resemblance to the actual truth.

Reply Score: 3

Not a Bad idea
by drcoldfoot on Thu 27th Dec 2012 17:20 UTC
drcoldfoot
Member since:
2006-08-25

I believe an Inspector Gadget-style watch that keeps time and you abreast of news, commuter times, etc. with a built-in camera for facetime, is not out of the Picture... I'd rather keep texting, emails (viewing), heck, even Nagios alerts on a watch(provided there;s an API) , than a phone or tablet, anyday. As this would be bluetooth enabled, a watch alert would definitely be better than constant cellphone ringtones in a business meeting or restaurant.

Reply Score: 3

Good idea, wrong producer
by Carewolf on Thu 27th Dec 2012 18:51 UTC
Carewolf
Member since:
2005-09-08

I have wanted that idea for a while. Imagine being able to see messages and reject calls from the watch.

But it needs to be an open standard, since one watch design is just not going to be enough. Only the Apple market segment are unimaginative and uncreative enough to ever accept only one look.

Still hope they will make it open though, or an open "copycat" version will follow behind soon. I have been asking for this for 10 years ever since my first mobile with texting.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good idea, wrong producer
by zima on Thu 27th Dec 2012 20:45 UTC in reply to "Good idea, wrong producer"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You haven't been paying attention ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Ericsson_LiveView - check out links in the article; released 2 years ago, quite decent price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_SmartWatch - or the current model. Both work "with most Android phones".

PS. But how this SE watch went unnoticed, how Sony one goes unnoticed, perhaps tells us something... perhaps smartwatches aren't that good idea, in practice?

Edited 2012-12-27 20:49 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Good idea, wrong producer
by Carewolf on Thu 27th Dec 2012 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Good idea, wrong producer"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Maybe the technology should have gone the other way. Watch manufacturer to improve sales adds programmable backlight to most high end watches. And the Phone manufactorer could then find ways to integrate that. Because I would not buy a Sony or Apple digital watch, but a good Seiko that is augmented by bluethooth integration to my phone would be awesome.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Good idea, wrong producer
by Laurence on Fri 28th Dec 2012 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good idea, wrong producer"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I think you're in the minority there.

Most people wear watches as a functional fashion accessory or because they can't use a phone at work.

In the case of the former, bluetooth isn't really pretty / fashionable enough to wear on ones wrist; and in the case of the latter, bluetooth would be useless.

So I think it will be a long time yet before such things ever take off - assuming they ever will.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Good idea, wrong producer
by MOS6510 on Fri 28th Dec 2012 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good idea, wrong producer"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Apparently men didn't wear wristwatches, but used pocket watches (I guess mobile phones compare to those now). Wristwatches were for women. This changed during the war, don't know which one, I guess the first world war.

I don't know about England, but here in The Netherlands most people still wear watches. Personally I have a number, each for certain occasions. Most of the time I wear a Casio F-91W:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F91W

It's the cheapest watch I have, but I wear it because it's small, light and complete. In other words: you don't feel it, it doesn't get in the way and has an alarm, stopwatch, backlight.

When I wear an Apple shirt I have 3 Apple watches to choice from. If its a Formula One weekend I have a F-1 watch. On holiday I have a water proof (swimming pools and sea) watch with a button to switch between local and back-home time. For meetings I have 2 expensive watches, for musicals and stuff a classic looking watch and for weddings I have a few pocket watches. And a couple of others.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Good idea, wrong producer
by Laurence on Fri 28th Dec 2012 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good idea, wrong producer"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Apparently men didn't wear wristwatches, but used pocket watches (I guess mobile phones compare to those now). Wristwatches were for women. This changed during the war, don't know which one, I guess the first world war.

I didn't know that. Interesting stuff (I'd rep you just for that if I could).


I don't know about England, but here in The Netherlands most people still wear watches. Personally I have a number, each for certain occasions. Most of the time I wear a Casio F-91W:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F91W

It's the cheapest watch I have, but I wear it because it's small, light and complete. In other words: you don't feel it, it doesn't get in the way and has an alarm, stopwatch, backlight.

When I wear an Apple shirt I have 3 Apple watches to choice from. If its a Formula One weekend I have a F-1 watch. On holiday I have a water proof (swimming pools and sea) watch with a button to switch between local and back-home time. For meetings I have 2 expensive watches, for musicals and stuff a classic looking watch and for weddings I have a few pocket watches. And a couple of others.

That's a great deal more coordinated than I think I'd ever bother to be, but if you enjoy watches / have the income to afford such treats then good for you ;)

I'm still hunting around for a replacement to a watch I broke 15 years ago and yet to find anything I like ;)

Watches, like most fashion accessories, are very personal items. So finding even just one watch to match my personality has been a trick affair (though I'm glad to see you've had better luck there). Where as I think most people see phones more as gadgets, so are more motivated by function (and I guess a degree of form too) more than pure aesthetics and owning something individual to them.

Maybe I'm way off the mark here, but I'd imagine even someone like yourself who enjoys Apple products would feel a little strange about wearing a generic Apple wrist watch which (for arguments sake) 1 in 10 of the population could buy. Or are you not as bothered about having more individual items when it comes to watches?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Good idea, wrong producer
by MOS6510 on Fri 28th Dec 2012 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good idea, wrong producer"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I'm very picky when it comes to watches. Yes, I'd buy an Apple watch even of millions of others do, but I'd only wear it when I go running or the cinema (so I can peek why my phone was vibrating). Perhaps at work if it's not too heavy.

When you go to Spain or Turkey you can find many watches, from cheap to expensive. From a distance most shops seem like watch heaven, but on close inspection I don't like most watches.

The Casio one is a watch I was on the lookout for. It's retro, but it also has some history to it (and even its own Wikipedia page). Items are more fun if they have a story behind them. Most watches don't.

I really dislike watches with "fake" stuff on them, like dials that don't do anything, a fake compass or these dive timer aids that can't be rotated. What I also dislike are watches with all kinds of texts on the face, like its specs or watches that have overly artist ways of showing the time, making it more like an IQ test than just reading the time.

My watches need to be easy readable, void of any distractions, no fake functions and an established brand (the history bit). I can't say all my watches fit that description, but then again most of them I rarely wear. I have 4 I use most.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Good idea, wrong producer
by zima on Fri 28th Dec 2012 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good idea, wrong producer"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The Casio one is a watch I was on the lookout for. It's retro, but it also has some history to it (and even its own Wikipedia page). Items are more fun if they have a story behind them. Most watches don't.

Yeah, that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F91W#Claimed_use_in_terrorism part is... curious ;) (better don't take it on a flight to the US, I suppose ;p )

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Good idea, wrong producer
by MOS6510 on Fri 28th Dec 2012 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good idea, wrong producer"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_watch

Pocket watches are not common in modern times, having been superseded by wristwatches. Up until the start of the 20th century, though, the pocket watch was predominant and the wristwatch was considered feminine and unmanly. In men's fashions, pocket watches began to be superseded by wristwatches around the time of World War I, when officers in the field began to appreciate that a watch worn on the wrist was more easily accessed than one kept in a pocket. A watch of transitional design, combining features of pocket watches and modern wristwatches, was called trench watch or "wristlet". However, pocket watches continued to be widely used in railroading even as their popularity declined elsewhere.
The use of pocket watches in a professional environment came to an ultimate end in approximately 1943. The Royal Navy of the British military distributed to their sailors Waltham pocket watches, which were 9 jewel movements, with black dials, and numbers coated with radium for visibility in the dark, in anticipation of the eventual D-Day invasion. The same Walthams were ordered by the Canadian military as well. Hanhart was a brand which was used by the Germans, although the German U-Boat captains (and their allied counterparts) were more likely to use stopwatches for timing torpedo runs

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Good idea, wrong producer
by Laurence on Fri 28th Dec 2012 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good idea, wrong producer"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Yeah, I'm familiar with pocket watches as one of my closest mates collects them. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Good idea, wrong producer
by Kochise on Fri 28th Dec 2012 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good idea, wrong producer"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

I do wear this one :

http://www.conrad.fr/ce/fr/product/672266/Montre-solaire-radiopilot...

Solar + radio controlled : always on time. Far enough for my use.

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Good idea, wrong producer
by MOS6510 on Fri 28th Dec 2012 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good idea, wrong producer"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

That's a very nice looking watch!

Would be even better if they removed the 13-23 numbers, and the solar run/radio controlled text, because it's not like you keep forgetting that and need to keep reminded each time you want to know what time it is.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Good idea, wrong producer
by Kochise on Fri 28th Dec 2012 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good idea, wrong producer"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Its just about self promotion. About aestetic, you can get these versions :

http://www.conrad.fr/ce/fr/product/672094/Montre-solaire-radiopilot... ("black" edition)

http://www.conrad.fr/ce/fr/product/672265/Montre-solaire-radiopilot... (cheaper and leather)

/off topic

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good idea, wrong producer
by Morgan on Fri 28th Dec 2012 04:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Good idea, wrong producer"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I had a Sony SmartWatch for a while; it's an interesting device in theory but the execution is not quite there yet. I gave it to a friend who is more of a "watch man" than I am, he enjoys it well enough.

I can't see Apple improving much over the Sony watch, as it already felt and looked like an Apple device.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good idea, wrong producer
by shotsman on Fri 28th Dec 2012 06:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Good idea, wrong producer"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Deep in the R&D labs of the like os Samsung, Microsoft, Apple, Google etc there are probably a bunch of people who look at things like the S-E device and try to take the ideas to the next step.
They evaluate the technology, try it out and then do some crystal ball gazing as to where that bit of tech might go PLUS how it might be integrated into the current and future product set that their company is selling/developing. The 'How cool is that team'.

If they didn't do this then that company is most certainly going to be left way behind the competition over 3-4 product cycles.

Therefore, IMHO this is not really news. What would be news would be release of information that company X was never going to use Tech Y in their products.

Reply Score: 2

OStmz
by Soulbender on Thu 27th Dec 2012 19:05 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Seriously, all this rumour-mill nonsense is just the tech equivalent of fashion gossip rags.
Maybe we like to think it's different and more important and advanced and whatnot but at the end of the day this is what it is: gossip without substance or importance.

Reply Score: 5

Watches are different beast
by Dr-ROX on Thu 27th Dec 2012 19:30 UTC
Dr-ROX
Member since:
2006-01-03

I haven't seen any "hi tech" watch model succeeding despite many of them were made. Well, even simple electronic watches are somewhat avoided or even ignored in a "real" watch reviews. Well, it's an accessory and the main thing a watch must have is some kind of luxury factor, having real gears, ticking. unless Apple could market that to it's followers as a cool thing.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Watches are different beast
by zima on Thu 27th Dec 2012 22:50 UTC in reply to "Watches are different beast"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

OTOH Apple already released what is possibly the most popular (almost)smartwatch, the iPod Nano 6th gen (after adding to it a watch band). Though who knows how many were & are used that way.

And IIRC Apple marketed... watch bands, their varied styles, as the cool thing.

Reply Score: 3

Already done... under Android
by Kochise on Thu 27th Dec 2012 20:01 UTC
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Got more infos on the android watch :

http://fr.ubergizmo.com/2012/04/z1-smart-android-2-2/

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Thu 27th Dec 2012 20:39 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

Why Intel?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 28th Dec 2012 08:01 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

In the 80's I had a computer watch, although it didn't connect to my phone. Well, it only connect to my Commodore 64 with a cable. Anyway, there is nothing new about "computer" watches.

The Apple watch rumor has survived a couple of times ever since people started wearing iPod Nano's as watches. It sound ideal to be able to use your watch to see if you need to get the iPhone out of your pocket. It would be great if Nike+ on the iPhone displayed information on the phone, because it's easier to peek at your watch while running than to grab a phone.

I have an above average person number of watches (including Apple watches), but I've stopped buying them the last 2 years in anticipation of an Apple watch or another brand that connect with an iPhone.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Antartica_ on Fri 28th Dec 2012 10:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Antartica_ Member since:
2012-12-28

Just for completeness, there exists now a watch like that: the metawatch.

Of the current crop of smart watches (sony smartwatch, imwatch, metawatch and wimm), the metawatch has versions that connect with the iPhone, and shows notifications, SMSs et al in the watch. It also supports call notification.

In the android camp, I know that work has been done in the android support program to implement call notification/rejection, but don't know if rejection is completely implemented.

For more information:

http://www.metawatch.org/

Be aware that the firmware is somewhat rough around the edges, especially for iPhone users (with android it has had a lot more testing, although it can be a little finicky with the phone firmware's bluetooth stack; it works best with CyanogenMod).

Both the watch firmware and the phone support app are open source, with caveats (the watch firmware has a binary blob for the bluetooth stack).

Discaimer: I own a metawatch since September 2011.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 28th Dec 2012 11:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I like the Metawatch's display (nice retro and very clear and easy to read), but I'm not to fond of the strap, I prefer metal. Also the bezel is a bit large, rather they used it for a larger display. A very good thing is it being water resistant.

But if I buy a smart watch it needs to connect to Nike+. When I go running I carry my iPhone in an armband and it's not easy to keep running while taking it out, looking at it and putting it back.

It would be great if you could use your watch to talk with your car, although Apple haters will claim prior art as they had it in the 80's and even based a TV series on it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by novad on Fri 28th Dec 2012 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

I agree with you about the usage you could make with such a watch but want to answer your "Apple haters" comment.

First there is prior art for "smart watches" and not only in TV shows. If Apples implementation differs a bit it's not a revolution... It's simply a new implementation... Nothing more.

I think in this kind of situation Apple fanboys (And Apple itself) are worse as they will claim it's Apples invention and that everybody else who makes a watch that works with electricity copied them (The proof is there... Look at the patent XXXX where Apple "invented" the usage of electricity to accomplish intelligent tasks in a device attached to a body)

As always... Sorry for my English... It's really not my first language :-)

Edited 2012-12-28 12:38 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 28th Dec 2012 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Your English is fine!

Actually it was a small joke and a reference to Knight Rider.

If Apple comes up with a watch and loads of people buy it they will probably claim to have re-invented the smart watch or kickstarted the industry. I don't think they will claim to have actually come up with the idea, nor did they do that with the iPad and iPhone. They will patent stuff and might sue others.

Fact is that smart watches are already amongst us and have been for years, but they aren't mainstream and Apple could make that happen like they did with tablets. That would probably be good for any smart watch maker as it will cause people to look for them and check them out. If Apple proves there is money to be made the innovation will take off.

But it's tricky. if Apple makes an expensive watch I don't think many people would buy one. Why pay a lot for an iPhone and then a lot for not having to take it out of your pocket? If Apple makes a cheap watch they will sell lots, but not make much money. Apple can probably make a lot of stuff that will sell, but it won't earn them much money so they don't.

Then again, they don't make a lot on their accessories and an iWatch could be seen as one.

Until there is an Apple watch in the stores it's all speculation anyway.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by novad on Fri 28th Dec 2012 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

Hello MOS6510

I appreciate your answer.

I didn't realize it was a joke and a reference to Knight Rider (My fault)

I don't think smart watches will ever have any success. It's not a question of Apple or anyone else making them.

The main problem with such a smartwatch is its size… To be usable it must have a big screen (Maybe not 4’’… but big enough). If it has a minimalistic screen it can be used for very limited tasks like:

- Answer/reject calls
- Bluetooth music player
- Hum… heuuuuu… Maybe pay stuff with a NFC chip

With a big screen, it's simply that you (Generic you... Not you MOS6510 :-) ) look stupid, except for specific tasks like jogging.

It's not the kind of object people like to show or are proud of.

That makes it an expensive gadget for a niche market.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 28th Dec 2012 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

My jokes are often presented in a serious way and cause such reactions to my sadistic amusement. :-p

I don't think the screens needs to be very big. It's only used for time and notifications, perhaps some media controls. Voice control (Siri)?

But to succeed it needs to have some good specifications and not be made from cheap material, this will drive the price up, add to this profit margin and it may become an expensive watch. Add a little more money and you got yourself a (small) tablet.

So I do think an Apple watch can be useful, but I doubt it can be good AND affordable AND make Apple enough money for them to go ahead with it. I guess they would if millions of Android users would dance in the rain with their Android watches, but they aren't so Apple might not do it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by novad on Fri 28th Dec 2012 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

Let's imagine a funny device (No need to talk about who makes it for now) that I could also appreciate:

Ok... A watch... How should it be:

- no (too) visible difference with a "normal" watch.
- Voice recognition
- It MUST have 3-4-Whatever-G
- bluetooth connection with other device for:
--- Phone answer/reject (Must work in conjunction with a headset)
--- Read media from portable device (Music / Radio) (still has to work in conjunction with a headset).
--- Biometric records and real-time advices for cardiovascular training (like a Polar Watch) (Another one commented about it and it's a good idea)
--- Stream media to other devices (TV / Radio / Computer)
- NFC for easy payments
- Cable-less charging
- Wifi (client and hotspot)
- Open protocols to communicate with a maximum of devices
- And a little personal touch... Why not a little steampunk touch :-)

Edited 2012-12-28 13:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Fri 28th Dec 2012 16:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

In the 80's I had a computer watch, although it didn't connect to my phone. Well, it only connect to my Commodore 64 with a cable. Anyway, there is nothing new about "computer" watches.

Plenty of those from Seiko back then http://pocketcalculatorshow.com/nerdwatch/seiko-computer-watch-fun/

But apparently they didn't prove very useful. Maybe trying to be useful is the wrong way, maybe it's better to try being fun - like a watch with... Tetris ;)
http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Nelsonic/Tetris.htm

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sat 29th Dec 2012 09:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12



Aye, I have the RC-1000 and UC-2002 watches plus the UC-2200 and UC-2100 keyboards.

The RC-1000 could be attached to a C64, allowing you set alarms and upload memos.

It had an hour chime, daily alarm, weekly, monthly and IIRC an alarm at date X. The nasty thing was ALL the alarms were either on or ALL alarms were off. Thus if I set an alarm for November 5th a few months in advance every hour, every day and every week the watch would make a noise. If I turned that off I wouldn't remember the 5th of November.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Mon 31st Dec 2012 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

BTW oldish hardware and... software - recently ( http://www.osnews.com/thread?546039 ) you were wondering if ~spider naming theme would be apt for browsers.

Well, there is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachne_(web_browser)
(plus, the software category of web spiders, from the times of slower & more expensive connections)

Thus if I set an alarm for November 5th a few months in advance [...] If I turned that off I wouldn't remember the 5th of November.

Do you really need an alarm for that date? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Mon 31st Dec 2012 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It was just a random date I picked at random.

I could have picked your birthday, but I have no idea when that is. I guess I have 1 on 365 chance (ignoring leap years) of picking the right one.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Mon 31st Dec 2012 13:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well... Remember, remember, The Fifth of November! ;)

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot )

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 1st Jan 2013 10:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Well, in 2013 any date you randomly pick probably has a large number of historic events attached to it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Tue 1st Jan 2013 12:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh, certainly - but it was still funny how you picked the date of Gunpowder Plot, in the context of the "remember the 5th of November" saying and... the presumed use of one of your watches types, Casio F-91W, to detonate explosives ;)

Reply Score: 2

What's wrong with all these?
by Kancept on Fri 28th Dec 2012 11:35 UTC
Kancept
Member since:
2006-01-09

http://www.chinavasion.com/search?q=bluetooth+watch

Watches that do all this have been around for a long time. I used to wear one of the bracelets that bluetooth paired to my phone. It'd vibrate on an incoming phone call, and I could accept or reject calls from it. It didn't look techy at all, and you couldn't tell it was a piece of tech. But it was nice during meetings, as it was "transparent" to the room, but I knew I had a call.

You can see in those results, there are way more options now, but the point is that they've been around for a bit. There are even ones in there with cameras.

Reply Score: 2

rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd want all the normal digital watch functionality thought of first and only then add on the smart features. For example, use my favourite Casio watch as a starting point:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Casio-WV-58DU-1AVEF-Ceptor-Bracelet-Digital...

Metal strap, radio-controlled time (could replace this with Bluetooth time sync I suppose, but radio control is better - doesn't require a nearby Bluetooth device), shows the *full* time and date (including the DST indicator and year and you can put it in the "correct" DDMM format - yay!), stopwatch, alarm, countdown timer, second time zone.

Now add smart features:

Colour display (or at least greyscale), notifications, vibrate for alarm/notifications, run custom apps (probably wouldn't be full Android apps) sideloaded from Bluetooth.

Problem is that all that wouldn't cost 30 pounds I bet!

Edited 2012-12-28 11:57 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Wearable computer
by microbe on Fri 28th Dec 2012 12:48 UTC
microbe
Member since:
2011-11-30

It could also be a wearable computer with decent cpu and memory.
With such a device you could

- connect to bluetooth display and keyboard, and process your data
- stream video to nearby TV and 3D glasses
- collect data about your health (heart,blood,etc)

Reply Score: 2

Prior art???
by novad on Fri 28th Dec 2012 14:25 UTC
novad
Member since:
2010-06-10
What I would do
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 28th Dec 2012 19:25 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14