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

111–120 of 248 posts

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

#111

Post by edent »

graemep wrote: post #95

Why does anyone need to charge a smartwatch on a bus? They charge very quickly and last for days. A Pine64 is not much more expensive, and works with the Gadgetbridge app, and is open (there is even a choice of two OSes). It works with Gadgetbridge so the app does not have all the same functionality and also has rough edges (but so does any cheap smartwatch). I even prefer the charger as its a magnetic cradle so the…

Why do you charge your phone on the bus? You've never left the house and realised you're running low on battery?

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

#112

Post by recursive »

sincerely wrote: post #96
rikafurude21 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so hard for americans to accept that china makes great tech without coping about "le CCP spyware!" - it seems so absurd, like why would the CCP want to know the heart rate of the type of guy who buys a 16 pound smartwatch? Why dont americans create 16 pound smartwatches?

>Why dont americans create 16 pound smartwatches? Because labor is much more expensive in America. This is not a mystery

I don't think that's enough to explain it. What's the ratio of labor costs?

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

#113

Post by monooso »

sincerely wrote: post #96
rikafurude21 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so hard for americans to accept that china makes great tech without coping about "le CCP spyware!" - it seems so absurd, like why would the CCP want to know the heart rate of the type of guy who buys a 16 pound smartwatch? Why dont americans create 16 pound smartwatches?

>Why dont americans create 16 pound smartwatches? Because labor is much more expensive in America. This is not a mystery

But American companies make their smartwatches in China.

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

#114

Post by edent »

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?

You can use this with GadgetBridge if you're concerned about your privacy.

Given the small amount of memory and its inability to run 3rd party code, I'd be staggered if this could be used as a vector for anything. What's it going to do, spam ignorable BLE messages?

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

#115

Post by [deleted] »

Reason077 wrote: post #110

> "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?

[deleted]

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

#116

Post by sfjailbird »

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".

Yes, it's worse. Seven eyes almost certainly snoop on me, in partnership with those companies. CCP might, but even if they did, idgaf.

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

#117

Post by eagleal »

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?

There's a category which is unbelievable it doesn't have as much popularity on open protocols/oss support which is a killer feature for these kind of wearables: glucose levels tracking with reverse engineered vendor lock-ins (think of Abbott sensors, etc).

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

#118

Post by amelius »

edent wrote: post #111
graemep wrote: post #95

Why does anyone need to charge a smartwatch on a bus? They charge very quickly and last for days. A Pine64 is not much more expensive, and works with the Gadgetbridge app, and is open (there is even a choice of two OSes). It works with Gadgetbridge so the app does not have all the same functionality and also has rough edges (but so does any cheap smartwatch). I even prefer the charger as its a magnetic cradle so the…

Why do you charge your phone on the bus? You've never left the house and realised you're running low on battery?

I mean your smartphone can take over the functionality of your watch if absolutely necessary?

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

#119

Post by danhor »

rcxdude wrote: post #73
Iulioh wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the usb c committee problem, the devices you are buying are out of spec This is because the cable is 2 sided so it can't assume polarity So it's a tradeoff for not having to guess how to insert the cable

>This is because the cable is 2 sided so it can't assume polarity Not really. The USB-C connection pinout is symmetric about a 180 degree rotation, at least as far as power connections go. It's entirely possible (and common, e.g. when using passive converters) to just put power out of it constantly. The main reason for the signaling resistors is to avoid having power presented on the pins when it's not connected, whi…

And to avoid having two sources (perhaps with slightly different voltages) connected together and leading to hijinks. E.g. a usb A-C cable plugged into a USB-C power supply.

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

#120

Post by throwanem »

scotty79 wrote: post #47
progval wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a built in LED which acts as a torch - which is only useful if you wear it on the left wrist.

Could be useful on the other hand if you could flip the face upside down. Surely people who wear watches on their right wrist prefer the wheel to be on the left side and the LED is on the same side.

Dunno about this one, but my Amazfits all have the option for wearing direction, so you can decide which way the controls face on asymmetrical models. It works and I've thought about using it even though I'm not a southpaw; worn distally, the Balance's digital crown tends to snag on things.
Post reply on HN