Still no digital seconds

[iBreatheApple]

You're aware that wOS 2 includes the option to set the display to stay on for 70 seconds for this purpose? Many medical professionals still wear analog watches so I think you're being overly dramatic about it.

It doesn't matter what you think. The fact is, a vast majority in this profession [the people I work side-by-side with all day every day, in forums, and more] are asking for a fundamental watch 'feature'. You may have to start over, you may have to assess longer, you may not remember exactly what 'tic' you started on, the patient might ask a question or disrupt the assessment, et cetera. Why are you arguing against that of which you have no experience? It's irrational.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

It doesn't matter what you think. The fact is, a vast majority in this profession [the people I work side-by-side with all day every day, in forums, and more] are asking for a fundamental watch 'feature'. You may have to start over, you may have to assess longer, you may not remember exactly what 'tic' you started on, the patient might ask a question or disrupt the assessment, et cetera. Why are you arguing against that of which you have no experience? It's irrational.

They did ask and Apple added the option to set the display to stay on for 70 seconds with a tap as a result. Not having the display stay on for at least a minute was a much bigger problem than the lack of seconds in the digital format.

 

[FrisbeeK9]

This has got to be the dumbest and most juvenile thread I've ever seen on here.

Just to make sure I enter an actual opinion though, as to not beckon the OPs wrath, It would be nice, but I don't really care for it at the end of the day.

This has got to be the dumbest and most juvenile thread I've ever seen on here.

Just to make sure I enter an actual opinion though, as to not beckon the OPs wrath, It would be nice, but I don't really care for it at the end of the day. However, the more user customizable options there are the better IMO so bring on the digital seconds Apple!

M
I agree "This has got to be the dumbest and most juvenile thread I've ever seen on here." And I keep coming back argh....

 

[CarlJ]

I can't believe the level of juvenile idiocy in this this thread.

And I'm not talking about the original poster. He asks a perfectly reasonable question about the Apple Watch, about a feature it by all rights should have (seconds have been a standard and expected feature of timekeeping for a very long while) and gets told that he's overlooked the other watch faces (that'd bug me too), told that he doesn't need to see the seconds, gets interrogated as to why he might want such a feature, gets told the feature is only useful for astronauts and particle physicists, and folks start speculating as to which kind of minor mental defect he might have to make him want his watch to display seconds. Oh, and there's a whole side thread discussing the latest in analog watch tech (you folks are in THE WRONG PLACE, watchuseek is three doors to the left).

Are you all trolling (in which case, shame on you, we try to rise above that on MacRumors), or have you somehow all been appointed to some tribunal that determines which features watch users are allowed to want?

I want my watch to show seconds. And first off, if you think you as part of the self-appointed tribunal get to tell me whether or not I'm allowed to want that feature, f**k off. Neither I nor the original poster seek your approval, we just want to discuss the technical details, here on this tech-oriented forum.

Seconds have been part of the classic "hours minutes seconds" division of time for quite a while (stop me if I'm going too fast for you), and buying a watch and wanting access to all three components of the time is not the slightest bit unreasonable. I might as well ask you why you want your analog watch faces to have minute hands, since business meetings (the only approved use for watches) always start on 30 minute boundaries, and you can determine those adequately from looking at the hour hand.

If you went to buy a car and pointed out that there were no seatbelts in it and the dealer said, "you don't really need seatbelts, most folks never crash", would that answer make you happy? What if then the other salesfolk gathered around and started interrogating you about why you want seatbelts? "Only race car drivers and getaway drivers need those - you aren't a bank robber are you?"

An analog seconds hand is not an adequate substitute for showing the seconds. And often I want to read the time in a completely unambiguous HH:MM:SS format. I'm a software developer and sysadmin, and lots of things on servers start up on minute boundaries, and it's frequently quite important to see exactly how close one is to the next minute boundary. But, again, you don't get to question my motives for wanting something that is a standard component, just like seatbelts.

I'd like to see a handful of you apologize to the OP and then wander away from this thread. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Hedgepig]

I can't believe the level of juvenile idiocy in this this thread.

And I'm not talking about the original poster. He asks a perfectly reasonable question about the Apple Watch, about a feature it by all rights should have (seconds have been a standard and expected feature of timekeeping for a very long while) and gets told that he's overlooked the other watch faces (that'd bug me too), told that he doesn't need to see the seconds, gets interrogated as to why he might want such a feature, gets told the feature is only useful for astronauts and particle physicists, and folks start speculating as to which kind of minor mental defect he might have to make him want his watch to display seconds. Oh, and there's a whole side thread discussing the latest in analog watch tech (you folks are in THE WRONG PLACE, watchuseek is three doors to the left).

Are you all trolling (in which case, shame on you, we try to rise above that on MacRumors), or have you somehow all been appointed to some tribunal that determines which features watch users are allowed to want?

I want my watch to show seconds. And first off, if you think you as part of the self-appointed tribunal get to tell me whether or not I'm allowed to want that feature, f**k off. Neither I nor the original poster seek your approval, we just want to discuss the technical details, here on this tech-oriented forum.

Seconds have been part of the classic "hours minutes seconds" division of time for quite a while (stop me if I'm going too fast for you), and buying a watch and wanting access to all three components of the time is not the slightest bit unreasonable. I might as well ask you why you want your analog watch faces to have minute hands, since business meetings (the only approved use for watches) always start on 30 minute boundaries, and you can determine those adequately from looking at the hour hand.

If you went to buy a car and pointed out that there were no seatbelts in it and the dealer said, "you don't really need seatbelts, most folks never crash", would that answer make you happy? What if then the other salesfolk gathered around and started interrogating you about why you want seatbelts? "Only race car drivers and getaway drivers need those - you aren't a bank robber are you?"

An analog seconds hand is not an adequate substitute for showing the seconds. And often I want to read the time in a completely unambiguous HH:MM:SS format. I'm a software developer and sysadmin, and lots of things on servers start up on minute boundaries, and it's frequently quite important to see exactly how close one is to the next minute boundary. But, again, you don't get to question my motives for wanting something that is a standard component, just like seatbelts.

I'd like to see a handful of you apologize to the OP and then wander away from this thread. I'm not holding my breath.

Thank you! I really can't understand why people got quite so animated. It's as if I'd questioned the lack of a built in sandwich toaster or something. This watch can tell you how the planets are aligned. But not give an accurate digital readout. Just seems odd to me.

As for getting annoyed with some of the initial responses, I think some of the regulars on here see it as their mission in life to wait for a new thread and try to make people look stupid. When the OP stands up for themselves and questions them, a few other regulars waddle in and tell the OP not to be rude and aggressive.

It really was a pretty simple question about a feature that's been standard on all digital watches for years. And, incidentally other smart watches. And, whisper it... It really is OK to question Apple sometimes. I love the watch, but I just want to have this feature on "The most personal device ever" if you do or not that's ok too.

 

[profmjh]

CarlJ is 100% correct.

It can be incredibly irritating to start a thread and then have someone immediately weigh in with a patronising and unhelpful comment.

These forums are not usually too bad, but there are some stock responses that seem to get trolled out a lot: Apple is right about everything, stop complaining; if that's the worst thing you have to worry about you must have a charmed life, etc.

It is perfectly reasonable to want to see digital seconds. It's available on my MacBook right now. And so what if you don't want digital seconds. The OP does. That doesn't make him weird. Digital watches have had digital seconds for decades.

 

[mavis]

I'm still waiting for this incredibly basic, fundamental "feature" as well.

 

[testcard]

What do you do that requires such accuracy?

Flight Controller at NASA?

 

[anyjungleinguy]

I can't believe the level of juvenile idiocy in this this thread.

And I'm not talking about the original poster. He asks a perfectly reasonable question about the Apple Watch, about a feature it by all rights should have (seconds have been a standard and expected feature of timekeeping for a very long while) and gets told that he's overlooked the other watch faces (that'd bug me too), told that he doesn't need to see the seconds, gets interrogated as to why he might want such a feature, gets told the feature is only useful for astronauts and particle physicists, and folks start speculating as to which kind of minor mental defect he might have to make him want his watch to display seconds. Oh, and there's a whole side thread discussing the latest in analog watch tech (you folks are in THE WRONG PLACE, watchuseek is three doors to the left).

Are you all trolling (in which case, shame on you, we try to rise above that on MacRumors), or have you somehow all been appointed to some tribunal that determines which features watch users are allowed to want?

I want my watch to show seconds. And first off, if you think you as part of the self-appointed tribunal get to tell me whether or not I'm allowed to want that feature, f**k off. Neither I nor the original poster seek your approval, we just want to discuss the technical details, here on this tech-oriented forum.

Seconds have been part of the classic "hours minutes seconds" division of time for quite a while (stop me if I'm going too fast for you), and buying a watch and wanting access to all three components of the time is not the slightest bit unreasonable. I might as well ask you why you want your analog watch faces to have minute hands, since business meetings (the only approved use for watches) always start on 30 minute boundaries, and you can determine those adequately from looking at the hour hand.

If you went to buy a car and pointed out that there were no seatbelts in it and the dealer said, "you don't really need seatbelts, most folks never crash", would that answer make you happy? What if then the other salesfolk gathered around and started interrogating you about why you want seatbelts? "Only race car drivers and getaway drivers need those - you aren't a bank robber are you?"

An analog seconds hand is not an adequate substitute for showing the seconds. And often I want to read the time in a completely unambiguous HH:MM:SS format. I'm a software developer and sysadmin, and lots of things on servers start up on minute boundaries, and it's frequently quite important to see exactly how close one is to the next minute boundary. But, again, you don't get to question my motives for wanting something that is a standard component, just like seatbelts.

I'd like to see a handful of you apologize to the OP and then wander away from this thread. I'm not holding my breath.

Boom.

Unless you work for NASA or CERN or some other scientific endeavor, to-the-second time of day isn't relevant to 99% of watch wearers.

Neither's the moon phase, stock levels, sunrise/sunset times or any other niche complication Apple has implemented. Point is, there should be choices for "our most personal device yet" and leaving out a digital seconds display seems like a pretty pointless omission.

*Bam* there it is. All I'm trying to say is you don't need to go so hard at the people on the forum that reply. And I realize I'm wasting my time with this because you've probably always been this way and I'm not going to make a dent in your snobbish armor. Post as you see fit but as a new member on the forum as you are, you will quickly realize your approach should be modified.

And by the way I could care less if the digital face doesn't have seconds.

It's couldn't. Couldn't care less. But given your ferocity and fervent devotion in replying to this thread, I'm not sure there's many that would believe you.

 

[rocknblogger]

Measuring time down to the seconds would make sense if you were in a profession/hobby where it's really important or maybe if it was new year's eve but what other use case does the exact minute change matter? I'm still calling OCD.

Anyone in the medical profession that needs to take a pulse.

 

[maflynn]

I miss it and I don't know why is it's not there but then this is the apple way I guess.

 

[Four oF NINE]

Neither's the moon phase, stock levels, sunrise/sunset times or any other niche complication Apple has implemented. Point is, there should be choices for "our most personal device yet" and leaving out a digital seconds display seems like a pretty pointless omission.

The other complications you mention like lunar phases, sunset sunrise times, and even the non-time related NYSE app you referenced are frequently viewed by many users. The lunar phases as a complication, but especially in the astronomy face is brilliantly executed and a joy to behold.

A digital seconds place only clutters the watch. If seconds really matter, use the stopwatch app, and you'll get not only seconds, but tenths and hundredths of a second.

Anyone in the medical profession that needs to take a pulse.

If they're health care professionals, they have professional equipment dedicated for that purpose, but again, there's a stopwatch app if you really need seconds.

 

[Hedgepig]

The other complications you mention like lunar phases, sunset sunrise times, and even the non-time related NYSE app you referenced are frequently viewed by many users. The lunar phases as a complication, but especially in the astronomy face is brilliantly executed and a joy to behold.

A digital seconds place only clutters the watch. If seconds really matter, use the stopwatch app, and you'll get not only seconds, but tenths and hundredths of a second.



If they're health care professionals, they have professional equipment dedicated for that purpose, but again, there's a stopwatch app if you really need seconds.

You completely miss the point. A stopwatch doesn't measure time it times an event. Digital seconds as part of a watch represent time as a whole. All anyone is asking for is the OPTION of a feature that should be the most simple thing a watch does. REPRESENT TIME ACCURATELY! A digital display is the clearest way of representing time. For all I know, my 50 millisecond accuracy watch can be a whole minute off at any given time.

Nurses have worn watches attached to their uniforms, in the UK at least, forever. The image of a nurse taking a pulse using one is very common. Why would they want to go to the trouble of starting a stopwatch every time they want to take a pulse. Or every time someone boils an egg or does anything that takes less than a minute for that matter. When a £500 watch can do so much but neglects the most simple of options something's up.

 

[Four oF NINE]

Wow... not sure what to tell you.

Timer and stopwatch are as easy as summoning Siri, and you do get the second hand on the analog faces.. Apparently none of that is good enough for you.

Clearly you're upset over this, perhaps you should send an e-mail to Tim Cook.

 

[rocknblogger]

The other complications you mention like lunar phases, sunset sunrise times, and even the non-time related NYSE app you referenced are frequently viewed by many users. The lunar phases as a complication, but especially in the astronomy face is brilliantly executed and a joy to behold.

A digital seconds place only clutters the watch. If seconds really matter, use the stopwatch app, and you'll get not only seconds, but tenths and hundredths of a second.



If they're health care professionals, they have professional equipment dedicated for that purpose, but again, there's a stopwatch app if you really need seconds.

No they don't. They use their watches. Please don't try to tell me what they would do when I know for a fact what they do. When a nurse or doctor takes a pulse they use their watch to time the heart rate and for that they need seconds. My wife is a nurse. She has been for the better part of 25 years and I myself have seen plenty of doctors and nurses taking someone's pulse including my own.

 

[Four oF NINE]

No they don't. They use their watches. Please don't try to tell me what they would do when I know for a fact what they do. When a nurse or doctor takes a pulse they use their watch to time the heart rate and for that they need seconds. My wife is a nurse. She has been for the better part of 25 years and I myself have seen plenty of doctors and nurses taking someone's pulse including my own.

So what's the problem with using the stopwatch app? It's as easy as a shout out to Siri. I don't understand the problem.

 

[rocknblogger]

So what's the problem with using the stopwatch app? It's as easy as a shout out to Siri. I don't understand the problem.

First, if you've ever been deep inside a hospital you'd know that data and even cell service is not always available. Secondly, raising your wrist without having to do anything else is a heck of a lot faster than having to have to do anything else. Basically, raise wrist, find pulse, start counting. I can't imagine a nurse or doctor speaking into their watch prior to taking a pulse reading which also takes longer than just raising a wrist.

It's a silly argument. A doctor or nurse need seconds at a glance, period.

 

[Four oF NINE]

First, if you've ever been deep inside a hospital you'd know that data and even cell service is not always available. Secondly, raising your wrist without having to do anything else is a heck of a lot faster than having to have to do anything else. Basically, raise wrist, find pulse, start counting. I can't imagine a nurse or doctor speaking into their watch prior to taking a pulse reading which also takes longer than just raising a wrist.

It's a silly argument. A doctor or nurse need seconds at a glance, period.

Easy, use an analog face.

 

[rocknblogger]

Easy, use an analog face.

Isn't the point of this thread to have seconds on other than the analogue faces?

 

[Four oF NINE]

Isn't the point of this thread to have seconds on other than the analogue faces?

Initially, yes, but you presented an issue unrelated to that as a major problem in the health care field.

 

[rocknblogger]

Initially, yes, but you presented an issue unrelated to that as a major problem in the health care field.

No I was replying to someone who asked, who needs the precision of seconds? I'm paraphrasing.

 

[Hedgepig]

Wow... not sure what to tell you.

Timer and stopwatch are as easy as summoning Siri, and you do get the second hand on the analog faces.. Apparently none of that is good enough for you.

Clearly you're upset over this, perhaps you should send an e-mail to Tim Cook.

I'm not sure what to tell you! Repeating something doesn't make it any more useful or correct. A stopwatch simply doesn't tell the time. But we've been through that haven't we?

Is that as easy as raising your wrist? We know about analogue faces. They are not digital (hence the name analogue) and modular is the most feature rich useful face by far. If I used an analogue face I would sacrifice many complications.

You really don't need to get so outraged. "None of this is good enough for you". "Email Tim Cook". I'm only suggesting an option. That's all my friend. That's all. It doesn't keep me awake at night. It would just be nice and should not be beyond the wit of Apple.

 

[bobob]

I can't believe the level of juvenile idiocy in this this thread.

And I'm not talking about the original poster. He asks a perfectly reasonable question about the Apple Watch, about a feature it by all rights should have (seconds have been a standard and expected feature of timekeeping for a very long while) and gets told that he's overlooked the other watch faces (that'd bug me too), told that he doesn't need to see the seconds, gets interrogated as to why he might want such a feature, gets told the feature is only useful for astronauts and particle physicists, and folks start speculating as to which kind of minor mental defect he might have to make him want his watch to display seconds. Oh, and there's a whole side thread discussing the latest in analog watch tech (you folks are in THE WRONG PLACE, watchuseek is three doors to the left).

Are you all trolling (in which case, shame on you, we try to rise above that on MacRumors), or have you somehow all been appointed to some tribunal that determines which features watch users are allowed to want?

I want my watch to show seconds. And first off, if you think you as part of the self-appointed tribunal get to tell me whether or not I'm allowed to want that feature, f**k off. Neither I nor the original poster seek your approval, we just want to discuss the technical details, here on this tech-oriented forum.

Seconds have been part of the classic "hours minutes seconds" division of time for quite a while (stop me if I'm going too fast for you), and buying a watch and wanting access to all three components of the time is not the slightest bit unreasonable. I might as well ask you why you want your analog watch faces to have minute hands, since business meetings (the only approved use for watches) always start on 30 minute boundaries, and you can determine those adequately from looking at the hour hand.

If you went to buy a car and pointed out that there were no seatbelts in it and the dealer said, "you don't really need seatbelts, most folks never crash", would that answer make you happy? What if then the other salesfolk gathered around and started interrogating you about why you want seatbelts? "Only race car drivers and getaway drivers need those - you aren't a bank robber are you?"

An analog seconds hand is not an adequate substitute for showing the seconds. And often I want to read the time in a completely unambiguous HH:MM:SS format. I'm a software developer and sysadmin, and lots of things on servers start up on minute boundaries, and it's frequently quite important to see exactly how close one is to the next minute boundary. But, again, you don't get to question my motives for wanting something that is a standard component, just like seatbelts.

I'd like to see a handful of you apologize to the OP and then wander away from this thread. I'm not holding my breath.

Well said, CarlJ!

It's especially disappointing to see longtime (a combined 35 years) MacRumors members like drew05 (with a thumbs up from moderator maflynn, no less), FrisbeeK9, Warbrain, and JayLenochiniMac stoop to such unnecessary incivility in a thread on a straightforward topic such as this.

 

[Hedgepig]

Well said, CarlJ!

It's especially disappointing to see longtime (a combined 35 years) MacRumors members like drew05 (with a thumbs up from moderator maflynn, no less), FrisbeeK9, Warbrain, and JayLenochiniMac stoop to such unnecessary incivility in a thread on a straightforward topic such as this.

Very true. As a new member making a valid point, it's putting me off using the forum again. All people want to do is discuss the things that interest them with like minded people. If a topic doesn't interest you or you have nothing to add don't bother. And I don't mean don't disagree, by all means do that, it's a broad church and you're entitled to an opinion. I mean don't try to inflate your own ego by adding patronising comments. And then get upset when someone points out you're being a bit smug and pops your bubble. If you're a clown be prepared for people to laugh.

 

[Four oF NINE]

I'm not sure what to tell you! Repeating something doesn't make it any more useful or correct. A stopwatch simply doesn't tell the time. But we've been through that haven't we?

Is that as easy as raising your wrist? We know about analogue faces. They are not digital (hence the name analogue) and modular is the most feature rich useful face by far. If I used an analogue face I would sacrifice many complications.

You really don't need to get so outraged. "None of this is good enough for you". "Email Tim Cook". I'm only suggesting an option. That's all my friend. That's all. It doesn't keep me awake at night. It would just be nice and should not be beyond the wit of Apple.

Not sure why you think I'm outraged, (I'm not).. I'm just puzzled over what appears to be an obsession over a relatively minor issue with available workarounds. Pardon me for not getting this. I'll shut up now.