
Ask HN: Would you wear a smart watch that needs daily recharge? - mromanuk
I remember when I used to wear a Citizen watch, I hated (and annoyed me) to recharge it, once every 2-3 years. 
I simple don&#x27;t see myself, taking a watch off my wrist, charging it for the night and wearing it again in the morning.
Is this one of this things that I will be doing anyhow, or just a passing fad.
======
junto
As a side note. If you want a 'dumb' watch that doesn't need recharging every
few years, try a kinetic one. My Dad had his Seiko Kinetic watch for over 25
years. He managed to smash it in a car accident, and promptly replaced it with
another one. No batteries required!

    
    
      The caliber also incorporates Seiko's unique Kinetic Auto-Relay
      technology. It is powered by the movement of your body with 
      Kinetic Perpetual quartz accuracy and reliability. With Auto-
      Relay, the watch will, when not worn, operate normally for 6 
      months on a full charge, after which it goes into "sleep" mode 
      for up to four years. The accuracy remains and the calendar 
      continues to show the correct date, month and year, but the hands
      stop, conserving energy, until, once the watch is put on again, 
      the hands automatically reset to the correct time.
    

[http://www.seikowatches.com/world/technology/kinetic/perpetu...](http://www.seikowatches.com/world/technology/kinetic/perpetual.html)

Take that 'smart' watch!

~~~
Someone1234
Just be very careful you know what you're buying. Many of Seiko's automatic
watches don't last more than a day without movement.

The "Perpetual" range is just an automatic watch with a backup battery. You
have to wear it daily to get it to run for "free," and it is really only going
to last 12 hours on the stored energy before the battery has to kick in.

The batteries won't last forever even if you do wear it daily. They degrade.

~~~
jfroma
Yes,I've a citizen, transparent at the back so I could see the dynamo rotating
on movement. The system still works but the battery doesn't.

I've not been able to fix it in Argentina.

------
ulfw
No. Maybe i am just too old for it. But I used to go brush my teeth before
going to bed, take off my glasses and be done.

Nowadays you go connect your phone to a charger, connect your laptop to a
charger, connect your tablet to a charger, maybe connect your bluetooth
headphones or headsets to a charger and now also connect your watch to
charger. Quite the odyssey.

Brave new world. It's really time to invest tons in new battery research.

------
a3n
I have a Tactix GPS watch. One of the features that swayed me for that instead
of cheaper ones is "a battery life of up to 50 hours in GPS mode (depends on
settings) and up to 5 weeks in watch mode." So I don't worry about it, and it
doesn't take long to charge when I notice it's about half uncharged. And if I
ever go that long and forget ... so what? I have a phone.

So probably the answer to your question is no, I would not. I have a long
lived GPS watch, and I already charge my phone once every few days (Moto X).

Whenever I'm in a context where I could use a smart watch (as opposed to an
athletic watch), I have my phone anyway, which is better (for me).

I'm also curious if a smart watch is subject to a voided warranty if the water
detector dot inside indicates water got inside, like a phone. My watch is
advertised waterproof to 50m, which is much deeper than the odd creek or a
toilet.

------
Someone1234
Nope.

That's the reason why I haven't been interested in purchasing a Moto 360,
Galaxy Gear, Sony Smartwatch, or similar. The Apple Watch is no different.

The Pebble is the only remotely interesting smartwatch around, but I haven't
got one simply because the benefit doesn't out-weigh the cost (although if
someone gave me one for free I'd give it a fair shake).

The real question for me is: What does a smartwatch do that the cellphone in
my pocket does not? The fitness stuff is one answer, but frankly a $350
fitness tracker is a little expensive relative to other products in that
category readily available (e.g. Fitbit @ $99).

~~~
Terretta
The vibration feedback and glancable message letting you leave the phone in
your pocket or bag lets you go back to a less distracted life. The extra
effort to dig the phone out stops you from responding unless important.
Carrying just the phone doesn't have the barrier.

I think a hassle free smart watch changes a significant portion of a highly
connected person's day, lets them be more free, more productive, more organic.

~~~
Someone1234
> The vibration feedback and glancable message letting you leave the phone in
> your pocket or bag lets you go back to a less distracted life.

I'm pretty sure it causes a more distracted life just for the reasons you
mentioned. Now I cannot even just ignore my phone or put it out of view, it is
literally part of me!

Also is taking a phone out of your pocket really the "problem" they're trying
to solve? It isn't something, day to day, that I feel causes me hardship.
Maybe if I was a cyclist it would be useful, but I'm not sure you could read
the watch while riding (or it would be safe if you could).

> I think a hassle free smart watch changes a significant portion of a highly
> connected person's day, lets them be more free, more productive, more
> organic.

So many buzz words. I was half expecting you to use "synergy" there. What you
said doesn't really MEAN anything. It is just a bunch of fluff.

~~~
Terretta
Perhaps this depends on whether your livelihood depends on responding to the
right messages promptly. The smart watch lets you triage in a low interrupt
way.

Many people do not have the option of blanket "ignoring" calls and emails. The
change isn't fluff, it gives back the ability to stay present, no more
interrupted than the glance at a watch to be aware of the time.

~~~
lazylizard
i predict the next big thing to be a smart ring or tie-clip or ear-plug or
earring or nose-clip/ring or contact lens.. bring you less obtrusive
notifications for your smart watch... which bring you less obtrusive
notifications for your smart phone..

------
lutusp
> I simple don't see myself, taking a watch off my wrist, charging it for the
> night and wearing it again in the morning.

It's a simple question of cost versus benefit. I have to recharge myself every
day, but I think it's worth it. Electric cars have to recharge overnight.

> Is this one of this things that I will be doing anyhow, or just a passing
> fad.

To me, the advantage of having a wristwatch that didn't require recharging was
offset by the fact that it didn't do anything except display the time, and not
very accurately at that.

------
olivierduval
Agreed, a watch is a kind of fire-and-forget item: it has to work when you
need it and to be forgotten the rest of the time!!! If I need to charge it
every night (even every week), I won't use it. But maybe I'm not geek
enough... Moreover, I don't see enough added-value in this kind of devices
right now. BTW... isn't it possible for that kind of devices to recharge like
"forever" watch, only by the move of the hand?

------
snoopybbt
I would take it off at night anyway.

If it comes with a nice dock that charges it wirelessly, what's the problem?

Actually, what I don't like is turning watches into phones, meaning we're
going to change it every like a year or two, and getting angry because "the
watch is old and it got slow".

I've been using the same Casio F-91W for two years and it just works.

------
lifeisstillgood
Yes. Of course and we all will.

Exactly the same argument was presented for this Nokia flip phones versus my
iPhone. I mean I used to have a mobile phone that went a week or more between
charges - now I often don't make it from lunchtime to bedtime.

But guessed what I typed this on?

------
sa5
Yes. I take my watch off at home so charging it isn't a big deal. Do most
people wear their watch while they sleep?

------
lazylizard
the solar powered g-shocks i think last forever..

