Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 248 posts

Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C

#101

Post by Aaargh20318 »

KerrickStaley wrote: post #8
ackfoobar wrote: post #5

> The watch is simply missing the two 5.1k resistors connecting the CC1 and CC2 pins of the USB-C connector to ground that are required to indicate to whatever is plugged in that it wants 5v power. This is so annoying. Back when USB-C was less prevalent, I bought a pair of wireless earbuds over another for the same reason as the title - because it used USB-C. But then I cannot charge it with my macbook, unless I add…

This problem seems prevalent on cheaper devices. When I buy a device and discover it has this problem I always return it. I've seen it on the Hypervolt Go 2 (which I returned and replaced with a Theragun Mini) and on the Hitachi Magic Wand Micro (which I replaced with a Dame Dip). Like the post mentions, I think this happens because the devices are missing two resistors that are needed to indicate, when connected via…

> This problem seems prevalent on cheaper devices.

I’ve seen it on plenty of higher-end devices as well; and even worse.

The worst offender I’ve encountered is the TermoWorks Billows. ThermoWorks is a well established brand that makes high end thermometers and is considered one of the best on the market. So I was quite surprised to discover how their ‘Billows’ product is powered.

The device itself needs 12v and has a USB-C port for power. You’d think it would do USB-PD to negotiate it’s power needs so you can just use any old USB-C adapter. Not the case. It comes with a USB-A to USB-C cable and requires a special adapter with a USB-A port on it that puts 12v on the pins that normally supply 5v.

I have no idea how they came up with this abomination. Why even use USB-A connectors if it’s not going to work with a standard USB-A adapter, and why supply an adapter that’s basically going to kill most USB-A devices you plug into it? If you have a custom adapter anyway, why not just use a simple barrel connector? Why put a USB=C port on the device if it can’t use USB-PD?

I can imagine some Chinese ali-express product using such an abomination to save a few cents on components, but why would a well-respected brand like ThermoWorks ship such a thing? It boggles the mind.

Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C

#102

Post by ACCount36 »

ackfoobar wrote: post #5

> The watch is simply missing the two 5.1k resistors connecting the CC1 and CC2 pins of the USB-C connector to ground that are required to indicate to whatever is plugged in that it wants 5v power. This is so annoying. Back when USB-C was less prevalent, I bought a pair of wireless earbuds over another for the same reason as the title - because it used USB-C. But then I cannot charge it with my macbook, unless I add…

[dead]

Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C

#103

Post by jonathanlydall »

KeplerBoy wrote: post #43
jonathanlydall wrote: post #34

Even includes a screen protector on a GBP16 item! Not sure what it’s like in other countries, but here in South Africa you struggle to find a smart phone cover for much less than that. If you’re at the shops of the local scumbag company with a monopoly on legally distributing Apple products, they don’t offer a cover for less than USD25. Apple Watch covers cost a bit less at only like USD15. For screen protectors typi…

Order the stuff from china instead of paying your local distributor a convenience tax. You can have it cheap or fast.

With shipping cost on an overall small item cost, it’s unlikely to be much cheaper.

We also have the problem here where if the shipper doesn’t use a courier service and tries to rely on the local postal service, it’s a bit of a gamble you’ll get the item at all, and if you do, it tends to take months.

Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C

#104

Post by Hilift »

This is the oldest trick in the book. In 1946 a guy named Diet Smith invented the 2-Way Wrist Radio:

- In June 1954, the radio was upgraded to increase the range from 500 miles to 1,000 miles, then again in 1956 to 2,500 miles.

- In 1964, the 2-Way Wrist Radio was upgraded to the 2-Way Wrist TV.

- Tracy gave his young son Joe an obsolete Wrist Radio, which Joe was able to use to call for help when he was abducted and held hostage by dognappers.

We've been falling for this stuff for 80 years!

https://dicktracy.fandom.com/wiki/2-Way_Wrist_Radio

Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C

#105

Post by ewidar »

Arech wrote: post #94
rvnx wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like any Samsung or Google watch

Please don't pretend you don't understand that risks of Google/Apple maybe even Samsung getting the information is just "a tiny bit different".

To non Americans, and given the current political climate imposed by the American government, no it's not very different.

Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C

#106

Post by hopelite »

pacifika wrote: post #92

I’m concerned about all privacy angle of this personal information vacuum device category. What are the recommended privacy focused alternatives? Also a smart watch without firmware updates seems like an infection spreader?

I’ve never understood the value proposition of a smart watch for that reason. It seems mostly a fantasy thing based on having been conditioned by movies all their lives. Even the primary use case as a fitness tracker does not make any real sense; because as a beginner through novice, you don’t need to track minute details, it’s about simply getting to a consistent habit, and as an advanced person, you get nothing more from what a watch can track than you would from simply performing your routine and maybe timing yourself and journaling, which has its own separate benefits that are lost with a “smart watch”.

Given all the negatives (to users, not to the corporations you become a harvested product to), it simply does not make sense to have a smart watch, aka a tracking bracelet.

Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C

#107

Post by microtonal »

1dom wrote: post #71
albatrosstrophy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The battery is the single reason why I got the Amazfit. I use as a dumb health tracker and occasional GPS running. It easily lasts 4 weeks on a single charge. That's one less proprietary charging cable to bring on a trip.

I've been dying to ask about this somewhere where I might get a really informed response: What's the deal with Amazfit? I have an Amazfit GTR and it's been rock solid for a couple of years. Before that, I had an Amazfit Bip for a few years which was incredible. It did notification, GPS, heart rate tracking, always on display and battery life of 2 - 4 weeks. It did this years and years ago, when the best Android could…

Before that, I had an Amazfit Bip for a few years which was incredible. It did notification, GPS, heart rate tracking, always on display and battery life of 2 - 4 weeks. It did this years and years ago, when the best Android could do was 24 - 48 hours, and it did it for like £60 instead of £200. It still works too!

I don't know about Amazfit, but I have a Garmin that also lasts weeks. There are some differences: WearOS/WatchOS watches essentially use a more power-efficient/less powerful version of a smartphone-class SoC. They have to because they run a full Linux/XNU kernel and a pretty complete userland. Watches with weeks-long battery life typically use something that is more akin to a powerful microcontroller with operating systems tailored to such low-end hardware.

Besides that some watches (like several Garmin models) use transflective displays. They do not have to actively emit light during daytime (in contrast to OLED), sunlight is reflected. In contrast, OLED displays have to be more bright in sunlight to be visible.

Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C

#108

Post by maccard »

ackfoobar wrote: post #5

> The watch is simply missing the two 5.1k resistors connecting the CC1 and CC2 pins of the USB-C connector to ground that are required to indicate to whatever is plugged in that it wants 5v power. This is so annoying. Back when USB-C was less prevalent, I bought a pair of wireless earbuds over another for the same reason as the title - because it used USB-C. But then I cannot charge it with my macbook, unless I add…

This was exactly my complaint when the USB C standards were coming in - having a universal connector means nothing I you need a specific cable and/or power supply to charge it. You might say it’s not spec compliant and that’s fine - but it’s still a USB C port. We’d all be better off if they had just kept it as micro usb because at least then I’d _know_ I need a different cable for it

Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C

#109

Post by edent »

Arech wrote: post #85

TBH, such a low price for so many working (!) features is an amazing achievement if not subsidized! What bothers me here, however, is...a provenance. Let me guess, it asks from your smartphone access to your location, contacts, calendar, SMS archive, email, medical records and political views and attitude towards CCP and then does some shady syncs with .cn servers "just to keep you data safe in case a meteor hits you…

If you'd read my blog post, you'd see that it functions just fine without access to those permissions.

You're also welcome to disassemble the APK to show where it is sending data to.

But, as I say, it works just find with an Open Source alternative if you prefer that.

Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C

#110

Post by Reason077 »

> "I plugged it until fully charged, then wore it conti> nuously. After 24 hours of use, even with all my fiddling, that battery was at 80%. After four days, it still had 40% left"*

So if a £16 generic competitor can last 4 days, what's Apple doing wrong? Why can't a £450 Apple Watch (non-Ultra) last a full 24 hours on a charge?

Post reply on HN