Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Caller ID Watches 239

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the pricepoint-will-decide dept.
kbielefe writes "On Thursday, Sony Ericsson and Fossil Inc. announced a line of bluetooth watches that vibrate when a call comes in on your cell phone, display the number of the caller, and allow you to press a button to send the call to voicemail. No more digging around in your pocket or purse before deciding if the call is important enough to interrupt a meeting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Caller ID Watches

Comments Filter:
  • Battery life (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dsmey (193342) on Monday October 02, 2006 @07:42PM (#16285787)
    I wonder what the battery life is like and how many calls you get before your watch goes dead.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by madumas (186398)
      According to this [fossil.com]:
      "Recharge through USB or universal AC adapter"

      Sorry, I don't want to have to think about charging my watch. I expect to be able to keep it on my wrist a couple of months, at least.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RESPAWN (153636)
        What's the big deal? You probably already recharge your phone every 1 - 2 days. The same with your Bluetooth headset. Maybe once a week for your PDA. What's one more device added to the mix? Aside from maybe having to purchase a new powerstrip to have room for all of your devices, I don't see where it would be a big deal to remember to plug one more device in every night.
        • Re:Battery life (Score:4, Insightful)

          by soft_guy (534437) on Tuesday October 03, 2006 @12:46AM (#16287925)
          I don't see where it would be a big deal to remember to plug one more device in every night.

          You keep saying that long enough and you won't be able to get any sleep between all the plugging and unplugging you will be doing.
        • wowzers, what sort of phone are you using? My Nokia 6310i and Logitech headset get charged once a week! Admittedly I'm not a major chatterer, but there's still loads of battery life left!
          • by RESPAWN (153636)
            Sanyo 8200 with the automatic digital and analog roam option turned on. It really kills the battery life switching on automatic roaming since it switches bands and towers a lot more frequently. Add in to that the fact that my apartment is in a basement and so has bad reception. If I leave my phone in my pocket while I'm home, it's really hard bad on the battery since it spends a lot of time switching towers.

            I also tend to chat for at least an hour a day on it and like to play Sudoku while my life is was
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by timeOday (582209)
        It would be cool if they could make this watch self-winding. (And by "winding" I mean something than charges a small battery).
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by nickheart (557603)
          i dunno, i think the better idea would be to wind the spring for the vibe unit. then you don't have to worry about it's primary use, a clock, to run out of power, you just wont get a vibe when a phone call occurs if you forgot to wind it..... now just to solve the overhead for the bluetooth unit, cuz i'm sure it's gonna suck power too.
      • Do you wear your watch to sleep? Before you go to bed you put your watch in the charger on your nightstand and by the time you wake up the battery is full. That's how I remember to charge my phone. Sure, watches don't normally need to be charged so frequently, but most watches don't have Bluetooth chips in them...
        • Do you wear your watch to sleep?

          Yes. I am also bad at remembering to charge my 'phone. The only gadget I charge sensibly is my iPod, because putting it in its dock outputs sound through my hi-fi, and so there is an added incentive to charge it.

          • by Nethead (1563)
            And do you shower more than once a month? Oh, I forgot, this is a slashdotter we're taling about.
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by scotch (102596)
              Ooh oooh! I sleepe with my watch on and I shower frequently, how do you think I keep my watch clean? Seriously, my almost never comes off, and it is loose enough so that my 2 or 3 showers a day clean underneath it quite well.

    • by dreamlax (981973) on Monday October 02, 2006 @11:19PM (#16287441)
      I just wonder how long until they batteries are recalled . . .
      • yeah, I'd hate to lose my left hand when the LiIon battery blows up, it'd be pretty messy!

        might be an interesting way to do electronic tagging of criminals, need a bluetooth gps watch which reports location via mobile phone to police.

    • Re:Battery life (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Monday October 02, 2006 @11:36PM (#16287539) Homepage Journal
      I don't think that's the biggest problem.

      The very target market for this type of thing is probably the market that's abandoning the use of watches. Especially that thing. I heard of a poll last week that said that the "young adult" market generally isn't using watches to tell time anymore. The only upside is that they will get watches as a fashion accessory. I really don't think that Fossil qualifies. If it looked fashionable, metal with decent gold or silver plating, then maybe it would have had a better chance.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by danpsmith (922127)

        I really don't think that Fossil qualifies.

        Maybe not for people that want a status symbol, but if you want a reliable watch that looks like a real watch, is durable, and doesn't require a second mortgage for tank metal, fossil definitely works.

        People claim that prices are going up on everything and go into debt for things that have little improvement for the value. My brother's 2000 dollar movado doesn't really look 1980 dollars better than my fossil (I actually only paid 16 dollars cuz I worked at a de

  • landline as well (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Monday October 02, 2006 @07:42PM (#16285791) Journal
    This sounds useful for the land line as well.
    • by Greyfox (87712)
      Just plug your landline into an asterisk server and use a SIP-capable smartphone and it should work the same way at home or out and about.
    • by lelitsch (31136) on Monday October 02, 2006 @10:50PM (#16287297)
      What is this "landline" that you are talking about?
      • by MarkRose (820682)
        It's a fossil of telephony... oh wait...
      • What is this "landline" that you are talking about?

        A landline is a phone connected into the POTS network via a physical cable and receives power from a central distribution point allowing it to survive power outages (assuming the upstream provider has a generator or UPS built into the terminals). It usually allows unmetered calling to anyone in your local area and allows you to receive calls from anywhere without paying fees.
    • BUTT UGLY (Score:3, Insightful)

      by brunes69 (86786)
      That watch is butt ugly.

      You'd think Fossil could come up with better looking packaging than that, especially given the launch of this new technology.
      • by gstoddart (321705)

        That watch is butt ugly.

        You'd think Fossil could come up with better looking packaging than that, especially given the launch of this new technology.

        Gotta agree with you. Never heard of fossil til I followed the link. They seem to have tons of really nice watches (and I don't wear a watch ;-) that I could see.

        That looks like a really ugly 80's digital watch.

        Now, I'm off to look more closely at their website. I can live without the caller ID, but the watch company suddenly interests me. :-P

        Cheers

        • by jbrader (697703)
          I advise you to be very wary of Fossil. They are very nice looking watches that have a habit of falling apart or stopping for little or no reason. Of the 4 or 5 that I have owned only 1 still works and I tend to go pretty easy on my watches.
          • by scotch (102596)
            Yep, that was my experience 15 years ago the last time I had as Fossile watch. Utter crap, fell apart if you looked at it funny. Nice styling though.
          • They are very nice looking watches that have a habit of falling apart or stopping for little or no reason.

            My Fossil watch bought in 2000 is still going strong despite quite a rough life, including some very intensive mountain biking and military training school and service.

            • by jbrader (697703)
              That seems to be how they go. The one working on is the seceond on I bught and has been through all manor of hell (though I don't wear it much anymore). All the others died after very light use, perhaps I should have abused them more.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by dynamo52 (890601)
          This one [cnet.com] is little more stylish. It also says the battery lasts 7 days.
    • by EnderWigginsXenocide (852478) on Monday October 02, 2006 @07:47PM (#16285859) Homepage
      I always thought they looked like this. [stonecompany.com]
    • I was surprised to see that the watch isn't digital. It seems like they're trying to de-geekify it, but I wonder whether that is really the best strategy...
    • by sootman (158191)
      Wow, what a totally ugly faux-commando piece of shit. Fossil makes lots of nice watches [google.com] but this ain't one of 'em.
  • by happy_place (632005) on Monday October 02, 2006 @07:48PM (#16285871) Homepage
    Of course in the next year or so, when they come out with the whole Cellphone IN the watch, this product will be obsolete... :) --Ray
    • Of course in the next year or so, when they come out with the whole Cellphone IN the watch, this product will be obsolete...

      And those will be obsolete in two years, when they introduce the wrist-mounted video phone.

      Just think -- we'll finally catch up with Dick Tracy!

    • by usrusr (654450)
      no chance, since the trend to smaller mobile phones has reversed a few years ago, when the started to converge away the markets of all the other gadgets, one at a time. personally i like this, because it is easier to carry one big phone than to carry a (writs)phone, an electric organizer, an mp3 player and a cheap clickpicthing. the volume of all those things mainly consist of a display and a battery, why would anyone not want to multiplex as much functions as possible through those bottlenecks?
      • why would anyone not want to multiplex as much functions as possible through those bottlenecks?

        Because the kind of screen a PDA or media player needs is completely different from the kind of screen that's sufficient for a watch or phone. Personally, I think a cellphone watch would be a great idea, as long as it was only the tranceiver, a 2-line LCD, a mechanism for inputting phone numbers, and a bluetooth chip (for the headset). Any fancier functionality (e.g. calender, file storage, media, etc.) belongs

    • by rishistar (662278)
      It already is obsolete for me .... I don't wear a watch cos I use my mobile phone to tell the time! Lots of people I know do this as well.
  • by glomph (2644) on Monday October 02, 2006 @07:49PM (#16285895) Homepage Journal
    My phone won't attach to more than one bluetooth device at a time. Which means that if you use this watch, you can't use other BT doodads.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Check if it has a "power saving" mode (the Bluetooth). The effect of this when on is slightly increased battery life, but the inability to connect to multiple devices at once. My SE K800i has it on-by-default.
    • by RMH101 (636144)
      I have never ever come across a phone that can only pair with one device.
      I have come across lots of devices that can only pair with one phone, though.
  • I want one of those Dick Tracy phone watches. Ok not really. It would be a novelty but the sound quality would suck and I would hate having to bring my arm up to my mouth to talk.
    • by woolio (927141)
      I would hate having to bring my arm up to my mouth to talk.

      I'm very puzzled....

      Do you SIT on your cell phone when you take a call?

      Or do you prefer hands-free?
  • by TheDarkener (198348) on Monday October 02, 2006 @07:50PM (#16285911)
    a) How nice it would be to not have to reach into your pocket to see who's calling
    b) How lazy I have become to think that this it would be nice to not have to reach into my pocket to see who's calling

    DAMN YOU, TECHNOLOGY!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fossa (212602)

      On a related note... what's with voice mail and answering machines kicking in at four rings? I can't seem to set mine to six. If I'm, say, at home washing dishes in the kitchen when the phone rings, I am not quick enough to rinse and dry my hands and sprint to the next room, even a mere dozen feet or so, and get the phone in time. I remember a time before the ubiquitous answering machine. My mother told me to not give up and hang up until eight rings had passed when calling someone. Now with cell phone

      • by karnal (22275)
        I switched to Broadvoice > a year ago, and since my initial set of frustrating problems, they've been great to do business with.

        One bonus - they have integrated voicemail. Now when I first signed up, I was thinking of putting up my own Asterisk box etc. but I haven't gotten around to that. I was overjoyed to find that their integrated voicemail allows you to change the # of rings until pick-up to 6!!!

        Man, that's nice. If I could only get my cell # to do the same.... I find sometimes that the delay be
      • If it's a GSM cellphone, try *#62# - http://www.mobileshop.org/usertech/gsmcodes.htm [mobileshop.org] and http://www.hotcakes.com.au/tips_codz/tips_codez.ht m [hotcakes.com.au] - allows you to specify the delay before a diversion occurs. Some phones will even do it via menu system.
    • by vondo (303621) *
      Or the fact that I've been reaching in my pocket to see what time it is for almost 10 years now. I gave up wearing a watch when I first got a pager.
  • by NitroWolf (72977) on Monday October 02, 2006 @07:52PM (#16285927)
    I've been in the market for a new geek watch for about 8 months now, but nothing really strikes me as something I want to wear.

    The watches themselves look ok, and I like the idea of having caller ID on my wrist and not having to fuss with the phone... but only supporting Sony/Ericsson phones? I won't buy Sony shit, and I Ericsson phones are notorious pieces of shit.

    It's BLUETOOTH for gods sake... it's an open standard. Why won't it support generic Bluetooth phones?

    Screw that... I'll buy from another company that actually has support for some of the more common phones out there. I can't think of anyone with an Ericsson phone off the top of my head.
    • by uradu (10768)
      The T610 was one of the most popular Bluetooth phones in Europe. I'm still using one here in the US because it's still a nice phone, has solid BT implementation, and does just enough to be a useful phone and data tether.
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but BlueTooth is only a hardware spec+protocol, right?

      I.e. you could set up a LAN using BlueTooth if you were really bored, you can stream your phone's audio to a bluetooth headset if you want, you can use BlueTooth to let your carkit work without a wired hookup (Even if that's stupid)... but these are only things you -can- do, and aren't things that are specifically part of the BlueTooth standard?

      I guess there might be something of a standard related to broadcasting incoming call d
  • But... (Score:2, Funny)

    I don't wear a watch, you insensitive clod!
  • by MajorDick (735308) on Monday October 02, 2006 @08:01PM (#16286021)
    My Grandfather was a watchmaker, a good one. When I was about 6 or 7 my father bought a digital watch, it was well over $800 a hefty sum in the early 70's but it was gold with a thin black (red) slit that when the button on the side was pushed the time lit up in the little red-dot LED displays similar to first gen digital calculators.

    We sat down at the kitchen table and as my dad leaned over to show my grandfather the watch, he pushed the button and the time displayed. My grandfather never one to show much emotion shook his head and looked at my dad.

    He said, "I dont understand, how can they call that progress when NOW it takes 2 hands to tell time ?" as he show a quick glance at his favorite self winding chronograph.

    My dads bubble was visibly burst, I never saw him wear the watch again, it sits still in his jewelry box.....

    I LOVE the Idea of the Caller ID Watch as I have refused to carry a cell until about 4 months ago , it drives me nuts and spends most of its time in the car, but I could live with something like this.....BUT PLEASE OMIT THe function requireing me to PRESS A GODDAM BUTTON !
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by superflyguy (910550)
      RTFA, or TFPD (product description) It doesen't require you to use two hands. Yes, if you want to mute the phone or reject the call, that requires a second hand, but there's no reason you have to do those things, and it's still a lot easier than getting your cell phone out. You still have exactly the same functionality with no additional work, and only the added functionality requires you to press a button. The problem with your analogy with digital watches is that you can already see the time, and you ca
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PCM2 (4486)
      BUT PLEASE OMIT THe function requireing me to PRESS A GODDAM BUTTON !

      Um ... so ... you don't push the button to send the call to voicemail. So your watch buzzes for a while and ... the call goes to voicemail. Happy now? Wait -- even better. With your method, you don't even need to buy the watch.

      • by MajorDick (735308)
        I think I like your idea best....

        Phone in car....

        7k Rol on my wrist......yeah well stick with that one....
  • According to reports I've heard about this damn thing is that it weighs MORE than an actual phone. Now tell me, why would I want some horrid piece of equipment strapped to my arm that actually weighs MORE than the actual thing? It makes no sense.

    Sure, if it had just been like my regular watch I'd probably have loved it. But this? No thanks.
  • This sounds like a really neat gadget - unobtrusive, simple and potentially quite useful. I'd be willing to pay $100 to use it on my current bluetooth-enabled phone (a razr). I believe a lot of people would be. The problem is that, according to the article, this watch will cost $250, and work only with Sony Ericson phones. This is going to doom the nifty new Caller ID watches, I think.
  • Bad idea... (Score:4, Funny)

    by pupstah (78267) on Monday October 02, 2006 @08:18PM (#16286197)
    How pissed is your boss going to be thinking you're so bored in his meeting that you have to keep checking your watch?
    • Probably equally pissed as he would have been that you were checking your phone, since it would imply that the callers were more important than he was.

  • by jafac (1449)
    and watch as I fumble through my backpack for replacement batteries or recharging cables, because of my fucking power-hog bluetooth watch and phone.
  • by Scutter (18425) on Monday October 02, 2006 @08:49PM (#16286439) Journal
    Sounds like a really useful concept. I would love to buy one! Oh, except that they've fallen into the usual corporate trap of taking an open standard and locking it down so it's not useful with anything but the products of the companies they've partnered with, it's way way too expensive, and Oh Lord is it FUGLY!
  • I have a bluetooth-enabled cell phone with speech synthesis and recognition.

    I have a bluetooth-enabled earbud.

    I can tap the earbud and have it recognize "Call Home" and call home.

    I can't have the earbud discretely tell me the caller id info of an incoming call, with the phone set to vibrate.

    WHY THE FS*K NOT!?

    For that matter, why does the phone not recognize the immensely useful, "say time" verbal command?



  • I'm not familiar with this 'watch' technology. Reading these posts, it sounds like some new apparatus which tells time. That doesn't sound like anything I need. My cellphone tells the time just perfectly.

    Oh, now I get it. The thing is worn on the writst so I don't have to fumble in my pocket everytime I want to see what time it is. Now that's a breakthrough!

    Seth
  • Many young people do not wear watches, they use their cellphone as a watch.

    So instead of looking at their watch to see who is on the phone, they look at their cellphone to see what time it is.

    And Bluetooth is good on batteries, but no so good that I want a device with a tiny, non-rechargable battery to do Bluetooth. You'll be opening your watch weekly.
    • by DarkVader (121278)
      Yeah, I stopped wearing a watch years ago, roughly about the same time I got my first digital cell phone. It just didn't make sense to have two devices with clocks, and the watch only had a clock and a calculator. The cell phone also had voice communication capabilities.

      Of course, I also consider non-digital watches to be utterly worthless other than as pretty museum pieces. The art and history are nice, but as a useful tool, I just don't get it.

      I'll skip mentioning my age, but I've had a cell phone sinc
      • I had one in '93, and mine cost a goddamn mint and minutes were $0.45 a piece.

        You must have had a bag phone or DynaTAC, right? It seemed like flip phones (the first handheld phones other than the DynaTAC) didn't become available until 1991.
  • So not only do I have to ask if I can REALLY use my phone for calling other people, I really have to ask now if my clock also show the time as well? This really does sound like the wave of future.. ;)
  • Am I unusual? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by a_nonamiss (743253) on Monday October 02, 2006 @11:02PM (#16287367)
    Does anyone else really see an odd paradox here in that all the watches have analog dials with digital displays for the caller ID and Bluetooth? Some of the most modern technology coupled with the most archaic. I don't know why, but it's very hard to find a decent watch that is digital only. (NOTE: My search automatically excludes anything made of plastic, anything non water-resistant or anything that has calculator buttons.) I don't think I'm odd (well, OVERLY odd...) but am I alone in thinking that it's peculiar that it's the 21st century and the majority of us are still reading watch dials that were invented 500 years ago? I understand the romanticism of wanting to know how it was done in the old days (similar to knowing how to shave with a straight razor, navigate by the stars or shoot a bow & arrow) but why is it that 98% of all non-plastic watches are still analog? Sure, I know how to read an analog watch, but why should I have to? It's extra work. I can glance at a digital watch, and I know instantly what time it is. No calculating, no trying to figure out which number the little hand is pointing at. No counting up by 5's. Just a 1/10 second glance tells me unambiguously what I'm looking for.

    After an exhaustive search, I found this [pulsarwatches.com] and so far I like it, but is it possible that it's the only decent watch that's all digital? I found a couple more (Ammon, Quiksilver and RipCurl come to mind) that were designed as surfer watches, but I really don't need to know when the tide is coming in here in Ohio. So I put this question to other time geeks out there. Are there other decent watches that are digital only? I don't like the analog/digital combo watches. Lots of wasted space that I don't care about. Just a reasonably plain, waterproof, easy to read watch that tells me the time and date at a glance, with a stainless steel case and a mineral quartz face. Am I wanting too much?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by scotch (102596)

      (NOTE: My search automatically excludes anything made of plastic, anything non water-resistant or anything that has calculator buttons.)

      ...

      but am I alone in thinking that it's peculiar that it's the 21st century and the majority of us are still reading watch dials that were invented 500 years ago?

      ...

      but why is it that 98% of all non-plastic watches are still analog?

      Let me get this straight, you want to use the modern technology when it comes to read-out, but you categorically exclude all watch

      • Re:Am I unusual? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by a_nonamiss (743253) on Tuesday October 03, 2006 @12:02AM (#16287711)
        Very good point. The reason is that I am exceptionally hard on watches. Exceptionally hard. I don't know why, but I am clumsy and careless. In all seriousness, when I used to buy plastic watches, they lasted an average of one month, no kidding. I'm not being a snob about plastic watches or anything. Just being practical. Stainless steel or titanium watches with a mineral crystal (or even sapphire, but I haven't found one of those yet) will last much longer on my wrist. A plastic one will not.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by scotch (102596)
          I'm pretty tough on watches, but mine usually last a year or so. Yeah, if you need a tougher material, plastic may not suite you. On the other hand, if the plastic watches are 10-100x less expensive than your metal rolex, then you can treat them as disposable.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I understand the romanticism of wanting to know how it was done in the old days (similar to knowing how to shave with a straight razor, navigate by the stars or shoot a bow & arrow)

      The biggest reason why some people shave with a straight razor is because it gives the closest shave humanly possible. Of course, there is a lot of romaticism involved with the collecting and honing and stropping, but for the most part, it's a matter of shave quality. If you've never had a proper old-fashioned straight razor

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Carewolf (581105)
      You can read the time of an analog watch a lot faster than of a digital one. Assuming you have been trained in reading them of course.

      What I find incredibly hard though is finding an analog watch that at least uses a minimum of modern technology to keep track of date, summer time and such.
  • I used to have all sorts of silly gizmos in my watch, be it a calculator, one of those silly phone books, and even a barometer back in high school. But now I have discovered the One True Watch Feature: WWVB reception. Since then I have been spoiled by having a watch that is accurate to, at worst, the nearest second (a timepiece that tells time, amazing!). I can tune into WWV and listen to the ticks synchronize exactly with my watch, I can turn on my GPS receiver and watch the time readout wander back an
    • I can turn on my GPS receiver and watch the time readout wander back and forth compared to the steady watch.

      It is your watch that is wandering.

      The entire concept of GPS requires accurate timekeeping to a scale of nanoseconds.
      If your GPS receiver's clock was ACTUALLY wandering around by whole seconds, your GPS unit would be completely useless. Your position fix would be off by hundreds of thousands of miles!
  • most importantly abstracts functionality - over form. Porting context over content changes the relationship between user and device from slave/master to client/server.

    Bluetooth gets leggs!
  • So during our meetings all my coworkers will have watches flashing on and off the whole time and everyone will notice how no one ever calls me. No thanks!
  • Watch Sales (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Takumi2501 (728347)
    In recent years, sales of watches have been down because people carry other devices which tell the time anyway. I wonder if this will do anything to help the watch manufacturers recover.

    Time will tell, I suppose. (No pun intended.)
  • ...Caller ID watches *you*!

    Chris Mattern

"Most of us, when all is said and done, like what we like and make up reasons for it afterwards." -- Soren F. Petersen

Working...