Is the Watch a timepiece?

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by Mascots, Jan 6, 2015.

  1. Mascots macrumors 65816

    Mascots

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #1
    The answers to this question are pure opinion (so relax), but I recently got into a debate about it so I figured it'd be worth seeing how others view this topic.
     
  2. Technodynamic macrumors 6502

    Technodynamic

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    #2
    I would not call it a timepiece.... I think of mechanical parts and crystals for this term.
     
  3. kdz macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
  4. danniexi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2012
    #4
    no; it being a timepiece is a feature of the watch.
     
  5. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #5
    Let's be honest here shall we, and I think we all know this.

    This is a tiny computer on a wrist strap, that's been designed to look like what most people consider a watch.

    It's got a case like a watch could have, a strap like a watch, a dial that uses skeuomorphism to the extreme to look like a watch winding dial and on it's little computer screen it can display a picture of a watch face.

    But we all know really it's just a little wrist computer.

    And of course call it what you want if it makes you happy, but it's not REALLY a watch/timepiece in the generally accepted sense.
     
  6. Runt888 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    #6
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/timepiece
    Yes, it's a timepiece.
     
  7. cmChimera macrumors 68040

    cmChimera

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
  8. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #8
    You cannot use that definition as it says "such as a watch or clock" and it's neither

    If you wish to say ANY electronic device that can deal with time is a "Time Piece"

    Then you HAVE to call a car radio a timepiece, a washing machine a timepiece, a microwave a timepiece, a VCR a timepiece

    I'm sure if you think about it for a moment, you will understand that the Apple watch is no more a "Timepiece" than any of these other devices, that can, as one of their functions display the time, or do things based upon the time.

    The fact that it's been styled to look like a timepiece it not the point.

    If I took a microwave, scaled it down and strapped it to my wrist, part of it's function would be to display the time, act as a timer, and even have an alarm on it.

    But I think we all know most people would not generally accept such a thing, or any of the others I've listed or thousands more household items that have time functions as part of their ability as timepieces.

    Please note: I'm not wishing to be negative towards the Apple device, but I think we should be realistic and understand what it is.
     
  9. cmChimera macrumors 68040

    cmChimera

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    #9
    Your position doesn't make a lot of sense. There are televisions now that have all sorts of computer-like functions, but they are still televisions. The Apple Watch, and all other smartwatches, are very much still watches even if they do more than watches have traditionally done.
     
  10. OllyW Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #10
    It's a digital watch with a few extra functions. ;)
     
  11. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #11
    Ok, let me ask you this.

    Is an iPhone a Timepiece/Watch?

    Is an iPod Touch a Timepiece/Watch?

    Is an iPod Nano a Timepiece/Watch?

    If no, then why?

    If you do say no, then you are saying any device, that can display the time, that is small enough to realistically fit on your wrist, and be held on by a strap IS a Timepiece/Watch?

    The only real difference between an iPod, and iPod, an iPad and a Apple Watch is physical size.
     
  12. Technodynamic macrumors 6502

    Technodynamic

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    #12
  13. cmChimera macrumors 68040

    cmChimera

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    #13
    All the devices you listed are timepieces, not all of them are watches. The Apple Watch is a timepiece and a watch.
     
  14. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #14
    Maybe if we think of timepiece as a device whose principal function is to tell time.

    Then I'd think some people might use the Apple watch as a timepiece, using it mostly just to see the time.

    Others will use it more like a wrist worn computer.

    So I'd say whether or not an Apple watch is a timepiece depends on how you use it.
     
  15. Piggie macrumors 604

    Piggie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    #15
    I agree.

    You are 100% correct, it IS, and IS without any shadow of a doubt a "Wrist Worn Computer"

    I would say that is factually unquestionable.
     
  16. Cashmonee macrumors 6502a

    Cashmonee

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #16
    If you go by the strictest sense of the definition above, you can argue that it is not a timepiece. To me, that definition implies a single function instrument, which would eliminate things such as computers, VCRs, etc, since telling time is not their only, nor primary, function. I would argue that the :apple:Watch is more computer than timepiece, and that a computer is not a timepiece.

    In a traditional sense, I don't think there is even an argument. Timepieces traditionally refer to an instrument that uses some sort of mechanical means to tell time. Any sort of digital time telling device would not qualify in that sense.
     
  17. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #17
    :confused: In the strictest sense, the definition above doesn't imply a single function instrument at all.

    I think the only argument to be made is whether it "is" a timepiece or "contains" a timepiece. (I'd argue both uses are completely valid.)
     
  18. mojolicious macrumors 68000

    mojolicious

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Location:
    Sarf London
    #18
    To my ears the word 'timepiece' reeks of QVC.
     
  19. Mascots thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mascots

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #19
    I knew this would get people talking.

    Anyway, it is most certainly a time piece in my eyes, regardless of how it is used. I couldn't call any sort of device strapped to your wrist a timepiece, though, and that includes most of the current watches on the market.

    This made me laugh, Piggie. Apple has clearly gone out of their way to not disguise, but make the  Watch a Watch. From everything that I've seen (the complications, classic watch Faces, input via Crown, even the sounds), it seems as though Apple started with a really good digital-sytle watch and worked their way up, keeping that idea nested in the overall design methodology.

    What point in a process, assuming that that Apple started with something that's single purpose as a watch, does it become not a timepiece?

    Had they just slapped a touch screen on a band, formed some OS around it, and let it out the gates without the detail from the watch eras crafted into it, I could say that no, it wouldn't be a timepiece. But the  Watch is not that, and so is.

    What do you consider a timepiece? You may have said it, but I'm too lazy to reread. :p
     
  20. Cashmonee macrumors 6502a

    Cashmonee

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #20
    Perhaps. I usually think of instruments (in this sense) as a single function device that measures something.

    In the end, it's semantics. Those referring to it as a timepiece are trying to put it on a level with much higher end watches. That's the question that is really being asked. I don't think in that sense, the :apple:Watch compares. Not even remotely close.
     
  21. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #21
    What would your definition of a timepiece be then, if most of the current watches on the market don't qualify?

    Or, to put it another way, what qualities would a watch have to have in order to be a timepiece in your view?
     
  22. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
  23. iososx, Jan 6, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2015

    iososx macrumors 6502a

    iososx

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2014
    Location:
    USA
    #23
    It's all a matter of perspective.

    Personally if the Apple Watch is to be considered a timepiece, as a luxury timepiece owner, collector and enthusiast, I'd say Apple's models are moderately priced watches or cheap timepieces mainly because they are mass produced in huge quantities.

    Luxury Timepieces are hand made by highly skilled artisans one watch at a time.

    Like jewelry for men, displays of wealth should be understated for best results. When combining jewelry with a show of status, understated timepieces are a tastefully bold way of conveying the message.

    Desirability is understandably great for the Girard-Perregaux Opera Three, at $630,000. They position themselves as crafting “luxury timepieces for the few since 1791.”



    http://clicktempus.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Girard-Perregaux-Opera-Three.jpg
     
  24. Julien macrumors G3

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
  25. Mascots thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mascots

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #25
    I meant smart watches, not watches in general. My bad!

    But generally, the ideology that has driven watch development, fascination, and form over their history. I know that is vague, but a timepiece embodies those traits. It feels legitimate through those expressions.

    Classical watches, for the most part, meet that criteria.
    Many digital watches do, too.
    Most smartwatches do not.

    I wish I would break it down into A. B. and C, but I can't really summarize that feeling. It could be because I haven't gotten to personally use many of the devices, and haven't warmed up to them. But eh.
     

Share This Page