Re: In short, no.

In short, no. (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-05-23 17:16 (#1W6)

Smart watches aren't ready for mainstream yet, though this is certainly is progress in the right direction.

At the price range they're looking for, brand and image is a big factor. This looks very thick and would probably look out of place with formal wear. There is a market for big, chunky, and cutting edge, but it is very small.

Re: In short, no. (Score: 2, Insightful)

by jonh@pipedot.org on 2014-05-23 18:17 (#1W7)

It looks really really nice, and the transparent overlay is a nice idea. Having said that, I'm not sure I'm ready to shell out $500-$1000 for one. Maybe 4 or 5 years from now we might see the price drop into impulse-buy territory...

Re: In short, no. (Score: 1, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-05-23 18:38 (#1W9)

You really think so? It's not to my tastes at all. I think the contrast between a conservative design and the overlay would be really cool. But right, to be successful it needs a more reasonable price, or a big watchmaker name behind it.

Re: In short, no. (Score: 2, Interesting)

by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2014-05-23 18:49 (#1WA)

I agree with the name. Stick the overlay and bluetooth and brains on a rolex and you can feel free to charge an extra $5k for it, put it on a citizen and charge an extra $100, but a no-name, I'd only be willing to spend a couple hundred overall. It's easier to buy a all-digital and feel fine from a tech company (samsung, apple, etc.) but I want my mechanical parts to work day-in, day-out with no maintenance and remain accurate; I won't trust a startup to deliver on that (or really, anything else) until their product has been around for a while. Fancy new electronic gizmo I'm more willing because it is more of a toy. My watch is a tool, and I need it to work.

Story

Preview