UK start-up pitches touch-to-sync tech for watches Hoptroff, a London-based technology developer, today announced a chip for timepieces that, it claimed, "end the era of ‘dumb’ watches". Examples of such functionality include the ability to "store personal time-related data, such as the birthdays of spouses and children, local sunset and sundown times, tidal conditions or …
From my experience, and some googleing, unless you're willing to put down the best part of a month's salary you'll not get a mechanical watch that's anything like as accurate as a quartz. Add to that the WaveCeptor functionality (mentioned in the article) and the like and even the best mechanical watch is no match in fulfilling the primary function of displaying the time accurately.
If, as I am, you're happy to wear a digital watch you can even forget about changing the battery due to solar powered charging (which even works in fluorescent lighting).
Put those together and for a tenth or less of the price of your favourite piece of Swiss jewellery you can have a watch that tells accurate time day in day out for a good many years without any hassle whatsoever.
Don't get me wrong, I do like mechanical watches, but they suck at their primary purpose when put against a decent modern quartz.
"Which might well be more convenient to do if you can touch the sensor with your wrist rather than digging out your phone every time."
True, but only if you still have the habit of wearing a watch, which many of us have given up as you can always check the time on your phone, which also beeps at you to remind you of appointments etc already.
We've had this for years (see miscellaneous kit from Xerox PARC in the early 1970s) ... I, personally, had a wristwatch (built by Bill & Dave's HP) that synced up time & address book when in radio contact with an appropriate computer in the very late 1970s or early 1980s.
Useless technology, IMO. All I want a watch to be is ... well, to be brutally honest, all I want a watch to be is non-existent. I can see the time almost anywhere I look these days. I haven't worn a watch since the aforementioned HP, in all it's exciting bulky red LED-ness ;-)
Already have this technology. It's a Timex Datalink 150, from mid 90's. Just hold it near your computer screen, and click "download" in MS Schedule, Outlook or the special Timex program.
Hey presto your phone numbers and important times/dates (meetings, birthdays, etc.) are downloaded to your watch using near-field communications (optically from the monitor to watch at 1200 baud)
Also includes changable alarm beeps, and one single application (you can write your own or download ones written for the Motorola^H^H^H^H^H Freescale 6805 processor)
It still works very well, although it's now on it's 3rd or 4th battery. Also I need to use a real CRT monitor to program it, but that's OK because the video playback monitor on the PC is CRT :)
And it's not going to work as described.
To use their won example, you try to "synchronise" to watches... great. So who's the "master" watch and who's the "client"? How do they decide whose timeclock is more accurate?
In other words, there will be a human decision required, which negates the "just touch to sync" as advertised.
How exactly?
Unless it knows where you are, ensures you've got your hat and scarf and 10p telephone money and boots you out of the door in time to get to the bus stop I see there being a few other factors that mean this no more ensures you are on time than a PDA.
Stupid marketing claim.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
