One thing I wonder though is why they’d need to charge a watch on the bus when battery life on smart watches is typically way more than 1 day and you can charge it overnight? I mean each to their own but I would haaate the hassle of charging anything on a bus…
I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
151–160 of 248 posts
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#152I find it strange that in this whole, cool, nerdy review there's no mention of whether the device is fully yours and works on your phone, or if the app is (like in most smartwatches) just a glorified browser tab for your health data stored plaintext on a free service
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#153Why 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
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like the USB committee might be somewhat to blame. When most people think USB-C they're just thinking the cable. Why can't it just do regular slow charging with C to C cable?
It can, it just needs the two resistors, which is the cheapest possible thing the standards committee could have asked manufacturers to do. USB-C gets complicated at the high end, but for basic functionality I think the standards committee did a very good job at making the cheapest way to do it the correct way, e.g. a USB-C to 3.5mm audio adaptor can be entirely passive, it just needs the right resistor in it.
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#155Does it require the manufacturer's servers to be available to function? I find it strange that in this whole, cool, nerdy review there's no mention of whether the device is fully yours and works on your phone, or if the app is (like in most smartwatches) just a glorified browser tab for your health data stored plaintext on a free service
> You can always uninstall the app once done setting it up.
So no need to rely on 3rd party servers.
I also mention that you can use GadgetBridge if you want to store your own data locally.
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#156I can see usb-c being convenient for a smartwatch, but for a fitness watch they you are going to wear while hiking, swimming or any type of rugged outdoor activity it is important to not be a hole that can get a bunch of stuff stuck in it. Unlike proprietary cables for smartphones of the past the connector on high end smartwatches aren't there because they are trying to sell you a bunch of expensive cables and access…
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#157People get surprised how cheap things really can be when they see aliexpress, and the assumption is crap. I bought a ton of stuff from aliexpress, and very rarely-if any- was crappy.
I am surprised they can break even with such a product. Considering 25% of the cost go to selling/fulfillment/etc., maybe 8 Pounds for the BOM (?) they might earn 3-4 Pounds per item sold. To offset the cost of development (maybe 20-30 man years at 20k USD for Chinese engineers), would imply the want to sell at least 100.000 units just to break even. Is there enough market for this? All numbers spit-balled.
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#158This line kinda got me down, because, well, last night I went out for a few pints and paid €16 for two drinks; Here we have a miracle of modern technology available shipped to your door for about the same price of what it now costs to just go out and do the thing people have done when socializing for the last 1500 years.
We're subsidizing the costs of all this modern tech by heavily taxing ourselves on the things once taken as nearly the bare minimum lifestyle.
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it not a big deal? Or do customers lack the choice? If Apple had two lines of smartwatches, one for city/work crowd with the WiFi, Bright screen, NFC, powerful processor etc. but with tiny battery life. And another for hike/off-grid/travel/festival crowd without wifi, a slower, blander screen, slower hardware, less features but over a week)weeks on one charge. Would people not buy the second option?
It wouldn't fly and/or would be "one more SKU" to support with expensive software development. They've seriously stuck themselves in a pickle with their WatchOS offering. They can't move away from touch-screen b/c they've committed to "being able to enter a PIN" from the device (so they can offer AND PROTECT on-watch payment capabilities). They can't move away from touch-screen b/c they've duped all the uber's and do…
Re: I bought a £16 smartwatch just because it used USB-C
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is insanely common. I have about 6 devices with this problem, and I consider it unforgivable. Not only did you not include USBC charging, you went out of your way to trick me and lie and pretend you did. I would have preferred just using micro usb at that point. Powkiddy committed fraud and said the RGB30 can charge from USB-C, but they lied, it can only charge from USB A to C cables. Using it is a massive pain…
I feel like the USB committee might be somewhat to blame. When most people think USB-C they're just thinking the cable. Why can't it just do regular slow charging with C to C cable?