If only my software were valued by number of complications...
Everything about the high end "movement" scene rubs me the wrong way (I had a friend into it), but most of all, the pompous terminology.
Everything about the high end "movement" scene rubs me the wrong way (I had a friend into it), but most of all, the pompous terminology.
Why? I’m not a watch guy. But I think the engineering is beautiful. It’s also super niche, so there isn’t a financing model outside this to fund it.
The market in which it needs to exist is exclusive, arrogant and elitist. So there is a bittersweet response to it. Makes me think of Royal arts of the past, made to adorn the palaces and display wealth. beautiful, but they're better now at museums. I believe this watch shall too.
Strongly disagree. Pilfered artefacts are usually safer in a Western museum. But they’re more beautiful when left in their natural environment. In any case, if there is one thing sillier than someone with no respect for fine watches treating them as a status symbol, it’s getting upset about it as a bystander.
For me, this feels like one of the less harmful things rich people do. Ultimately you're paying a bunch of skilled labor in a developed state to maintain an artistic craft that uses very little energy and material, for a device that has worse functionality than one under $100. The only issue is where you got your money I suppose, and whether that money would have been better spent elsewhere.
It's a fully programmable ARM microcontroller. You can write "watch faces" for it. There's a 2nd factor codes face that lets you log in like you're James Bond on the Nintendo 64. One of the coolest projects I've ever worked on. I made it possible to calibrate the pulsometer, a feature I use frequently at work.
They even developed a custom LCD that's even more awesome than the original.
They serve the same function as a designer handbag - although you can at least put things inside a handbag and carry them around.
This is an item of jewellery, not a high-end custom PC.
I mean, I think you're right in that watch nerds usually have more domain knowledge, but I don't think it's inherently dissimilar.
For virtually any other watch, not so much as to the normal person they are just a watch
Keeping EU trade imbalances from getting too far out of whack?
If it fits within a size and power budget, then you essentially described sizecoding. In its extreme form, it is not practical, but it is an art form.
See you at Revision next week? :)
Software with the most integrations and features is usually ends up being the most preferred solution
If you ask someone what a "movement" is, they might well refer to the poop they had that morning, or Eurythmy (which I had as a subject at school!), or almost anything.
That's not a statement about how basic language has become, but rather intentionally lofty vagueness (like "bespoke" instead of custom) people invent for things perfectly well described by expressions anyone can use like "high precision timekeeping", but not-so-subtly signaling a higher price.
They were the normal words for the items described. They only sound fancy now that they have fallen into disuse.
Actually, ditto for bespoke, now that you mention it.
There's an easy parallel to make with the audiophile industry, which uses all kinds of colourful but ultimately vacuous language.
You’re reverting to your priors despite evidence to the contrary.
Eh, I don't think what he's saying now is unreasonable.
Certainly no one feels a pressure to use a modern term that might have less perceived value-- to say "functions" or "features" instead of "complications."
A big part of the product of a fancy watch, or a bespoke suit, is the traditions. When tradition or sounding fancy is opposed to accessibility, the former will win.
Methods in OOP. Every term in functional programming. Rolex does a little bit of the Apple game, renaming jargon. But the watch industry mostly uses the term the first person to use it deployed. (“Complications” makes more sense than “features” when working multilingual across French, German and Italian.)
I’d also argue that “features” is a bit misleading. Complications aren’t about utility. They’re about art. It’s intentionally overcomplicating something.
This is not the original usage; "complication" does not imply "grande complication."
> ..."features"...
None of your criticism applies to "functions" which is the first term used.
> Methods in OOP. Every term in functional programming.
Yes... I'm saying in a niche, luxury industry based upon exclusivity and tradition, the marketing pushes towards old, foreign, and exotic language. All these things in commodity digital watches are "modules" and "functions" instead of "calibre" and "complications." (With Apple, on the high end, choosing "complication" for some reason ;).
>people invent for things perfectly well described by expressions anyone can use like "high precision timekeeping"
What is "high precision"? Why are you using engineering jargon when you could say something simple like "accurate"? Why are you using such lofty elitist language?
It's one thing if your software vendor writes the software in Haskell, but if their pitch to you is that the software has 40 patent protected monads and is entirely dotless and lambda lifted, you're probably being taken for a ride.
Hell, even _inside_ the software development "scene" you can easily find similar cases. Like when web developer who builds (relatevily) simple web apps on top of Rails earns notably more then someone who works with a complex hardware.
Amateur radio software would win:
I agree, you could have an Apple-like interface that lets you tune a single frequency with a particular modulation, but nothing there seems like it's a constellation viewer that has almost no practical use.
https://www.xnec2c.org/#Nec2Treeview
But after a while I realized that's because it's essentially a graphical wrapper around a punched card program.
This might be more like wrist recursion.
EDIT: I wonder if a nixie wristwatch would be a middle ground?