Complication vs Feature and the Smart Watch

[fischersd]

I think the use of this term mostly bothers me because I'm a technology guy. I've worked in tech a little over 20 years now and we always refer to computer or software functionality as features.

Then I started doing a little reading on horology and Complications. I see where people want to refer to features on our watches as Complications, but I also think we're doing an immense disservice and disrespect to the watch makers / engineers that designed such fantastically complicated time pieces.

See, this is why they're called complications. They're fantastically complicated. Marvels of mechanical engineering. Carefully constructed and other items of the internals of the watch adjusted so all of these elements could work in harmony.

True, we have inter-dependence between features in software / electronic engineering, but I just don't see these features having the same balance or elegance that you do with these mechanical time-pieces.

I think it's wrong for us to do so. I know there's many watch lovers here who have significant collections of timepieces. I'd like to hear your take on this. Is there a "Horology Society" that could dictate whether this term should be extended to smart watches or not? Could we not reserve this for the mechanical watches?

Thoughts?

 

[Dormammu]

I think the use of this term mostly bothers me because I'm a technology guy. I've worked in tech a little over 20 years now and we always refer to computer or software functionality as features.

Then I started doing a little reading on horology and Complications. I see where people want to refer to features on our watches as Complications, but I also think we're doing an immense disservice and disrespect to the watch makers / engineers that designed such fantastically complicated time pieces.

See, this is why they're called complications. They're fantastically complicated. Marvels of mechanical engineering. Carefully constructed and other items of the internals of the watch adjusted so all of these elements could work in harmony.

True, we have inter-dependence between features in software / electronic engineering, but I just don't see these features having the same balance or elegance that you do with these mechanical time-pieces.

I think it's wrong for us to do so. I know there's many watch lovers here who have significant collections of timepieces. I'd like to hear your take on this. Is there a "Horology Society" that could dictate whether this term should be extended to smart watches or not? Could we not reserve this for the mechanical watches?

Thoughts?

Hm, this is an interesting train of thought. I'd be curious to see what some others chime in with

I've personally only ever had G-shock watches and the like in the past; so nothing overly fancy or ultra classy. For what it is worth (probably not much, heh), I don't see there being a problem with the features on our Watches being referred to as complications.

 

[hlfway2anywhere]

I think the use of this term mostly bothers me because I'm a technology guy. I've worked in tech a little over 20 years now and we always refer to computer or software functionality as features.

Then I started doing a little reading on horology and Complications. I see where people want to refer to features on our watches as Complications, but I also think we're doing an immense disservice and disrespect to the watch makers / engineers that designed such fantastically complicated time pieces.

See, this is why they're called complications. They're fantastically complicated. Marvels of mechanical engineering. Carefully constructed and other items of the internals of the watch adjusted so all of these elements could work in harmony.

True, we have inter-dependence between features in software / electronic engineering, but I just don't see these features having the same balance or elegance that you do with these mechanical time-pieces.

I think it's wrong for us to do so. I know there's many watch lovers here who have significant collections of timepieces. I'd like to hear your take on this. Is there a "Horology Society" that could dictate whether this term should be extended to smart watches or not? Could we not reserve this for the mechanical watches?

Thoughts?

Think of it as a nod or tribute to the traditional watch, not an insult. Otherwise you're in for an uphill battle you'll certainly never win.

 

[jabingla2810]

Is there a "Horology Society" that could dictate whether this term should be extended to smart watches or not? Could we not reserve this for the mechanical watches?

Thoughts?

There is nothing to dictate or debate.

Apple is calling them 'complications' on the Apple Watch, so thats what they are called.

Do I think they should be called this?
Prehaps not, but I can't think of a better name.

 

[jjlannoo]

I think the use of this term mostly bothers me because I'm a technology guy. I've worked in tech a little over 20 years now and we always refer to computer or software functionality as features.

Then I started doing a little reading on horology and Complications. I see where people want to refer to features on our watches as Complications, but I also think we're doing an immense disservice and disrespect to the watch makers / engineers that designed such fantastically complicated time pieces.

See, this is why they're called complications. They're fantastically complicated. Marvels of mechanical engineering. Carefully constructed and other items of the internals of the watch adjusted so all of these elements could work in harmony.

True, we have inter-dependence between features in software / electronic engineering, but I just don't see these features having the same balance or elegance that you do with these mechanical time-pieces.

I think it's wrong for us to do so. I know there's many watch lovers here who have significant collections of timepieces. I'd like to hear your take on this. Is there a "Horology Society" that could dictate whether this term should be extended to smart watches or not? Could we not reserve this for the mechanical watches?

Thoughts?

I don't think it matters, call them what you want.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

It's nothing more than marketing and Apple's desire to compete in the watch industry.