Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Still no digital seconds
- Thread starter Hedgepig
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
If I need to know when the next minute starts, it really doesn't matter how accurate the stopwatch is, IT WON'T DO THE THING I NEED. It could time down to ten-thousandths of a second, and it still won't tell me what I need to know. Do you understand the difference between time and duration? A stopwatch measures duration. A clock or watch displays the current time.
You say the display of seconds clutters the display. By the same logic, one could easily argue that the display of minutes also clutters the display. So, why do you complain about seconds but not about minutes? I would argue that they are both useful. Why such strong resistance to having the option to display the actual time?
I have taken each of your points and explained why I think you're wrong. (I'm allowed to think you're wrong) I can't be bothered to do it again. If you're still puzzled there's nothing I can do about that. It's not an obsession. It's an opinion that you don't like. That's not the same thing. I would suggest that digital seconds on the world's most advanced digital watch is not a minor issue. But that's just my obsession... I mean opinion.
None of the workarounds work. The original goal was seconds on the modular display, which is digital and has more/better accommodations for complications than any other display.
Folks keep suggesting "just use an analog display". Fine, okay, tell me which of the analog displays shows the tme as hours and minutes directly via numbers (not just hands pointing towards numbers) and offers a 3-line full width complication in the middle of the display.... Waiting...
Folks also keep offering the stopwatch. This either requires numerous taps (which requires both hands free, unless you're a contortionist) or raising your wrist and chatting with Siri. Which assumes you have your hand free to raise your wrist. And you have a working data connection. And Siri understands you on the first try. And doesn't take too long to process your question and reply. All this versus... just glancing at your wrist. And it still doesn't work for the case where you need the seconds in absolute terms (e.g. knowing when the next minute on the clock is going to start).
It really isn't a "workaround", unless it accomplishes the same task without imposing substantial additional restrictions.
So folks resort to just trying to talk us out of needing access to the seconds. Like you're suspicious or something. And then you start diagnosing people as having OCD. Really? Because we want something different than you? Just because some feature isn't of use to you doesn't automatically mean it is of no use to anyone. The world doesn't revolve around you, everybody is different. I thought most people learned that when they were, like, five years old. Apparently not.
Last edited:
I'm sure it won't be long before someone makes a digital seconds complication, as it seems like a simple an obvious option. After reading this thread, I'm wondering if I shouldn't get together with my programming friend and whip one up quickly.
In the meantime, it may be a good opportunity for some to get used to the idea of using an analog watch face, because it's a better representation of the volume of time, which is why we still have things like rpm graphs in a car's digital instrument cluster, rather than simply a digital rpm number. Many astronauts also still wear analog watches, fwiw. The Utility watchface, in it's most detailed form, is good for this.
In the meantime, it may be a good opportunity for some to get used to the idea of using an analog watch face, because it's a better representation of the volume of time, which is why we still have things like rpm graphs in a car's digital instrument cluster, rather than simply a digital rpm number. Many astronauts also still wear analog watches, fwiw. The Utility watchface, in it's most detailed form, is good for this.
Last edited:
Please do! I'd pay good money for that.
You are right. The analogue watch face does have many advantages over digital. To see at a glance the passage of time as a volume is best served by an analogue face, I agree. At the moment when seconds are required I use the utility face with the London time zone as a complication. But I always revert to the modular face for sheer variety of complications and information and seconds would be good. But I get your point.
Yeah, using your time zone complication is a good way to show both digital and analog time on the same screen.
Another thought on a workaround is to start the Stopwatch at exactly the top of the hour so that the minutes displayed coincide with realtime.
Obviously this isn't perfect, since you have the distracting 1/100ths blurring by, not to mention the fact that the modular face insists on showing the stopwatch numbers in white, regardless of whatever quieter color you have the rest of the face set to.
This is based on a trick I used to use on my old Casio to get it to continuously display the time to the 1/100th of a second - - in that case, the stopwatch rolls back over to zero at 59 minutes 59 seconds - - but I'm not certain if the Apple Watch does so at 59 or 99 minutes.
_____________
Edit:
I've had my stopwatch running in the center complication since my post, and I now see that it jumps to displaying hours also after 59 minutes - - so this workaround would require you to start the stopwatch at exactly midnight - - and even then may not work depending on how high the hours count in the stopwatch function. I'm going to leave mine running to see where it rolls over.
Obviously this isn't perfect, since you have the distracting 1/100ths blurring by, not to mention the fact that the modular face insists on showing the stopwatch numbers in white, regardless of whatever quieter color you have the rest of the face set to.
This is based on a trick I used to use on my old Casio to get it to continuously display the time to the 1/100th of a second - - in that case, the stopwatch rolls back over to zero at 59 minutes 59 seconds - - but I'm not certain if the Apple Watch does so at 59 or 99 minutes.
_____________
Edit:
I've had my stopwatch running in the center complication since my post, and I now see that it jumps to displaying hours also after 59 minutes - - so this workaround would require you to start the stopwatch at exactly midnight - - and even then may not work depending on how high the hours count in the stopwatch function. I'm going to leave mine running to see where it rolls over.
Last edited:
BTW, here are two previous threads on this topic:
Digital time display with seconds
Digital seconds..
Digital time display with seconds
Digital seconds..
Last edited:
Watch experience.Wrong. Medical professionals have been taking pulses with analog watches for years.
Citation needed. Likewise, I'm sure digital seconds would be too if the option was there.
If you're seriously going to run with the notion that digital seconds should be left out because the only people that need them are CERN scientists but advocate the inclusion of moon phases then there's some serious cognitive dissonance going on.
What makes it a better representation of the volume of time?
If that's the case then it's nothing but a failure on designers and creatives to come up with a more functional representation of time on a digital display.
Which is likely the same reason why car manufacturers use analogue representations on digital displays. The creators of Monument Valley took a look at this: https://ustwo.com/blog/cluster/
I don't like the idea of analogue implementations of information on a digital display. It's lazy and backwards looking.
I'm not saying that the visual representation of time HAS to be an analog clock form. Im saying that, with our current Apple Watch options, the analog faces are better in that regard than a simple hours:minutes:seconds (if seconds ever come) display.
I'm certainly open to other, non-skeuomorphic ways of displaying time. They would make a lot of sense on this watch. Granted, I think part of the attraction of skeuomorphic dials is that it doesn't require relearning how to read the same info all of the time. People rebelled against non-skeuomorphic, digital car clusters in the late 80s, but maybe we're ready for it, now.
I think if someone wants digital seconds just for the sake of wanting digital seconds, that should be good enough reason for wishing the watch had it. The OP, or anyone else, shouldn't need a job or scenario that requires digital seconds in order for the watch to display it. We have countless features on the Watch (and iPhone for that matter) that no one truly NEEDS, but just makes it nice to have an extra option. This IS their most personal product, after all.
That said, I too would like to at least have the option of having digital seconds. Why not? If you think it's too cluttered, don't use it, that's all. For example, I personally think having 4 complications on the "Simple" watch face is silly looking and cluttered, therefore I don't use it that way. But the option is still there.
Now if only we could get Apple to add a "tick-tocking" second hand for the analog faces instead of just the sweeping ones...
That said, I too would like to at least have the option of having digital seconds. Why not? If you think it's too cluttered, don't use it, that's all. For example, I personally think having 4 complications on the "Simple" watch face is silly looking and cluttered, therefore I don't use it that way. But the option is still there.
Now if only we could get Apple to add a "tick-tocking" second hand for the analog faces instead of just the sweeping ones...
The sweeping second hand is what differentiates watches with mechanical movements from those with quartz movements and is generally regarded as more desirable with watch enthusiasts which is probably why Apple made that choice.
It wouldn't hurt to have a quartz style ticking option though.
Not to be too pedantic, but, at one point, mechanical watch makers spent a lot of time trying to get their mechanical watches to beat at 1 bps, and the some quartz movements, like the Bulova Precionist, have a seconds hand that is smoother sweeping than any mechanical watch. Both types are desirable for various reasons.
They should make a face with a ticking hand and haptic feedback, to simulate a 1bps watch.
If you're a medical professional, you should know better than to make assumptions, something you told people "not in the field" to stop doing. In fact, I'm a physician, and I know what an apical pulse is. The point is that one can readily count cardiac pulsations or peripheral pulse waves using an analog second hand for whatever time span is appropriate - it's what we used to do before the advent of digital watches. However, if you care to reread my post, you'll see that I also wrote that Apple should provide a digital seconds option for those who want it.
I've wanted digital seconds right from the word go.
All we can to is fill out a feedback form and request Apple add it as an option. Does seem daft not having the option for the modular face, and miss it from always wearing Casio G-Shocks.
Fingers crossed.
All we can to is fill out a feedback form and request Apple add it as an option. Does seem daft not having the option for the modular face, and miss it from always wearing Casio G-Shocks.
Fingers crossed.
Of course they have. They are however able to use a digital watch as long as they have visible seconds. My wife has used digital watches in the past.
If everyone who wants seconds leaves feedback for features they want, this feature might crack the top 100 for most requested new feature. Probably top 500 honestly.
- Status