h a l f b a k e r y
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Your watch should be part of your personal area network.
When your phone rings (which may happen silently on the
watch display before the vibrator goes off in the phone
the number should be displayed on your watch, and the
watch buttons should do what your phone buttons would
to voicemail, answer on headset, etc.).
When a meeting reminder goes off in yhour PDA or
the reminder text should appear on the watch, and the
buttons can handle the "OK" or "defer" functions. Even
better, the watch should contain a replica of your
When you'rfe carrying both your watch and your PDA, the
reminder appears on the watch. When you have only one
device with you, that device (watch, PDA, or even phone)
displays the reminder. You should never get bugged for the
same thing by two devices.
Some other alerts would be interesting to see on your
as well. For example the popup alerts from nextbus.com
"the bus is 2 minutes away") would be useful on your watch.
This could work if the watch could see some other device
internet (or maybe SMS) connectivity.
Of course a connected watch could always sync itself to a
better time source via NTP, and report on the last time it
did so when prompted. It could also act as an NTP server to
other clocks under your control, to sync thgem when you
come near (assuming a bluetooth interface is cheaper or
uses less power than a WWV receiver for the satellite
The Seiko thing (see Google link below) is still (as far as I
can tell) a prototype (therefore not necessarily baked). Its
exact capabilities are not precisely known (so it may not do
these things). The propotype (and the wrist computer from
IBM that matches the same search) are enormous things like
a Dick Tracy wrist TV. This isn't baked until it looks like a
real watch (with hands and an LCD behind or in front of it)
and I can buy one for $50.
No comment. [DrCurry, Aug 05 2002, last modified Oct 04 2004]
More of a PDA than a watch, though, and no Bluetooth. [DrCurry, Aug 12 2002, last modified Oct 04 2004]
||The power consumption for bluetooth is not negligible. I don't think the battery life would be too great. But if you can live with that, fair enough.
||Errrr...... um. This is definitely under development and tantalisingly close to market release; expect them in the shops by this Christmas. I could tell you more, but then I'd have to kill you.
||8th of 7, you can tell ME, because this is the type of slave bracelet technology that makes life not worth living. Probably a 'killer app' in the sense of inducing stress-releated disease. Pavlov's dogs had it better.
||pfperry: Pavlov was not a nice man - he carried out some very crude and doubtless painfull surgery on his test subjects, involving cutting open their salivary glands. Check the history.
||I'm not sure that the watch - which after all is just a compact terminal - is any worse than having a web-enabled PDA with built in phone; it's just an extension of the user interface. Your choice. We aren't proposing implanting RFID tags in your neck or tattoing UV-readable barcodes on your forehead -yet. That's next year's development.
||You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
||Another, less mature, communications technology for wristwatches and the like relies on near field effects to send signals using the person's body as the transmission medium. The benefits are much lower power (milliwatts) than far field technologies like Bluetooth. Check this site out for details,