Watches >$20 will always be jewelry first and functionality second. This is a step in the right direction but I think they can do better.
I think we need a round face. Years of watch making tells us its clearly more attractive and what most consumers prefer, and a round display will be more 'revolutionary' then just a tiny smart phone on your wrist.
I was a watchmaker before I started hacking on code and realized it had a better future. Yes, one of those guys with a loupe and tweezers, and even an itty bitty lathe assembling small parts in the back corner of some old shop.
Watches greater than $20 is (hopefully) every single fucking watch in existence. You're deluding yourself if you think that manufacturing costs of these things will become so low you could buy one instead of lunch, and have it work at least until dinner the same day. If you want a quality, but commoditized watch at a bargain price, you'll be looking at $150 to $250, which will last you for 4 or 5 years, and can be serviced when needed. (Isn't this place the same place that bemoans Apple every time a new iPad or MacBook Air comes out on how unserviceable they are?)
Watches over $300 are arguably jewelry (and I'm being very generous here). Watches over $1,000 are starting to become timepieces, and people still pay good money for high quality watches that can last generations. The watch on my wrist right now is has been running constantly for over 10 years old, and has been serviced once (basically an oil change). What other mechanical device have you ever owned that has run constantly for ~5 years and not needed service? Your car can barely go 50 hours of continuous use at 65MPH before it's recommended to change the oil.
And round face? Really? Years (centuries, actually) of watchmaking have given us a round face because watches have always been manufactured on a lathe, which has a habit of producing round objects. Round faces are not "clearly more attractive". In fact, marketing of high end watches suggest that a half convex rectangle (width sides are straight, length sides are convex) is the most attractive watch shape, which is precisely what the Pebble is.
Sorry for the rant, but seriously, $20 is the worst number you could have pulled out of your ass, along with the round shape statement. Listen, I own, and probably dislike the Pebble (as a watch) just as much as anyone else that dislikes it, but your comment here is just completely uneducated and lacks any facts whatsoever.
The watch I wear is a Casio A168W-1 and it costs $16.92 on Amazon. It's already lasted 2.5 years, is still in great condition, and I love the thing. (Also looks similar to the silver Pebble Steel.)
And round face? Really? Years (centuries, actually) of watchmaking have given us a round face because watches have always been manufactured on a lathe, which has a habit of producing round objects.
Given that the faceplate is just that, a plate, I would have thought that the common 'roundness' was due more to trying to match the shape described by the hands than anything lathe-related, empty corners not looking pretty. Where square faces with hands exist, the design of the face usually tries to fill in those corners somehow.
"Watches >$20 will always be jewelry first and functionality second."
I'll heartily disagree with that. I would eagerly own a pebble, even the ugly plastic models, because it has utility to me. I work a small number of shows per year where I spend a lot of time busy and where my team has to keep coordinated, which we do so using groupme/text messaging, and the value of reducing latency/friction of keeping coordinated is hugely valuable in those circumstances.
Also, I own an altimeter watch which I use for hiking/backpacking. It's perhaps not as useful as the GPS feature in a smartphone (or a GPS handset) but it has the advantage of working even if I'm surrounded by tall trees and it gives me useful data just by looking at it (time, altitude), plus I don't have to worry about the batteries running out. It definitely doesn't look like jewelry.
>Watches >$20 will always be jewelry first and functionality second.
Bullshit. There are so many useful features that can't be packed into a <$20 device, especially not one small enough to fit comfortably on your wrist.
High-precision resonators, wireless time reception, solar power and/or high quality power cells, sensors (temperature, location, direction, biometrics, etc.), utility features (chronograph, alarm, etc) are not "jewelry" features. They are strictly utile.
And, of course, having obvious "computer" capabilities like a relatively high-resolution display and high-bandwidth short-range radio is not aesthetic; it's functional.
I never wear round face watches, they tend to look worse on me than rectangular ones. Either way I don't think the shape of the pebble face will have a huge bearing on its success.
I think we need a round face. Years of watch making tells us its clearly more attractive and what most consumers prefer, and a round display will be more 'revolutionary' then just a tiny smart phone on your wrist.