I think you're onto something there.
My ideal smart watch would be round with mechanical arms and a mechanical crown, but with a color eInk dial/face with a high refresh rate (I'm not sure if there is current eInk tech which meets these specs yet). I do not want to look like I'm wearing a compass on my arm, though.
One of my coworkers has a rather large, round, positively can-like Android smart watch. I look at it, and think, That's way too thick for a watch. It has a flatter back, which I think is a plus.
Another thing I just realized: Traditional watches often attach to the wristband much closer to the wrist than many smart watches. This helps them "disappear" when being worn.
There are very attractive square watches; Glashutte Original Senator 70s, Cartier Tank, Jaeger Lecoultre Reverso. Apple watch utterly fails at looking as good. It looks like a Dick Tracey TV-watch stuck on someone's wrist.
Otherwise I have no idea what one of these things is for, other than letting large corporations know about your heart rate. I like my ordinary Swiss and German watches; the engineering is fun to appreciate, they look kewul, give me something to nerd out about with salesguys that doesn't involve knowledge of sports, plus they tell me what time it is.
"engineering fun to appreciate"? Are you telling me you're thrilled to see a $4000 device (looking at the Jaeger Lecoultre) that will tell you the time (within a few seconds) if you remember to wind it up regularly?
I mean, you do you, by all means, but I don't get it.
If you look at it and all you see is $4000 rather than the skill and artistry which went into designing and making it, well, have fun with your 'smart watch.' FWIIW I also like 80s era calculators and obscure slide rules. Knowing there is a technical improvement doesn't require you to use it.
Well, sure there was skill and artistry involved. But there is skill and artistry involved in designing and building smart watches as well.
> FWIIW I also like 80s era calculators
Hopefully not to the point that you're carrying a $10000 TI-57 everywhere and swear that today's calculators just don't measure up to it...
If there were individual skill and artistry or even individual design or flair which went into them, they would be more interesting objects. It's theoretically possible to do. Nobody's really done it yet. I doubt anyone will for decades to come; the mindset that goes into a 'smart watch' is all wrong.
Way to stick it to the Man by buying an overpriced set of gears from him!
You can see how much individual design is going on because each of these outfits puts their OWN name on the same basic product.
If you can't see any artistry and skill in the making of Apple Watch faces https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK7KPw9bLfI or their wrist straps https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/hodinkee-apple-watch-revie... then I don't know what "artistry" and "skill" are supposed to mean.
Re: your lack of understanding -at least you admit it! I mean why would anyone buy a sailboat or hand crafted knife? You can always buy some mass produced thing which is "better." Why buy a sports car when you can have a reliable honda? Why buy a pair of $600 Aldens when you can wear crocs? Heck, why buy a meal made by a human when you can drink soylent and live in your cube at work for more hours?
FWIIW I wouldn't buy any watches from those companies more or less because they're run by holding companies (maybe Jaeger), but they're a world cultural treasure for preserving this kind of artistry for middle class to upper middle class people to enjoy. Mostly subsidized by the Chinese trade, but whatever.
FWIIW, as I said above: I do not buy watches from the "big" conglomorates (which, all together, are smaller than the ipad market). But I am glad they exist.
BTW I have a pocket watch which has been in my family since 1882. Try that with an apple watch and let me know how it goes.
And coming back your question: watch for man is a kind of jewellery, symbol of prestige, how wealthy you (your wallet) are. In some circles, people show it by having golden chains on the necks. In other by having "small", discreet details like cufflinks, sigils (if your family has aristocratic roots) and... watches.
Also, more generally, because it competes on craftsmanship rather than having the latest features, it won't be outdated in a few years as will every modern smartwatch. This changes how I look at it, because unlike with my smartphones or laptops, in the back of my mind I don't have a plan to eventually replace or upgrade it. It feels less... disposable.
I hope this helps illustrate my decision process a little. Obviously you may feel differently, but to me the feeling of consistency that I get from something that will be functional and repairable decades from now makes it a reasonably logical decision.
I can see the appeal of visible gears. But most mechanical watch aficionados seem to satisfy with the thought that the gears EXIST.
> it competes on craftsmanship
Not entirely sure what that means. It's not like smartwatches don't feature ingenuous engineering and quite a bit of manual assembly labor.
> it won't be outdated in a few years as will every modern smartwatch
That always seemed an exceedingly silly argument to me. Mechanical watches have been outdated for DECADES. By the 1980s, they were thoroughly outclassed in accuracy, functionality, and price.
Sure, in a few years, today's smartwatches will have been surpassed by better models, while odds are that the mechanical watch maker will, at best, have slapped a new paint scheme on the same old model. But in a few years, today's smartwatches will still outclass mechanical watches. And I don't see what's superior about stagnant technology.
> something that will be functional and repairable decades from now
For sufficiently small values of "functional", as apparently being off by 15 seconds a day is considered "well within their quality standards".
https://forums.watchuseek.com/f419/jaeger-lecoultre-watch-ac...
The Gligo looks good too, and I hope more hybrid manufacturers start making decent eInk watches, but it would honestly bother me having it display the time digitally under the analog hands.
What I'm not happy is that the 40 mm version is kinda ugly since the rim is too wide and that there's no two way communication so I can't change a song on my phone or decline a call.
On the other hand, it monitors my step count, heart rate, and exercise sessions. It lets me set alarms that trigger during the lightest part of my sleep cycle, and it displays notifications from my phone.
It's certainly at least a smarter watch.
EDIT: And given how poorly optimised smart watches are for glancing at the time, and the constant need to charge them, I'd argue you can barely call those a "watch" :P
While iPhones are sleek and stylish, the only thing that they are replacing are convergent previous technology devices without much stylistic precedence (unless you count the late 90s early 2000s "slightly ergonomic plastic" as a style) so nobody puts up much of a fuss. The Apple Watch is clearly an Apple designed product and it serves its function, but its replacing what has long been a style accessory with its own traditions and norms (particularly roundness), something you wear on your body and is visible to others at all times. When I see an Apple Watch, I don't think "Cool, that person has a smart watch.", I think "That's an ugly watch.". Round watch faces at least return to the classic shape.
My ideal smart watch would be round with mechanical arms and a mechanical crown, but with a color eInk dial/face with a high refresh rate (I'm not sure if there is current eInk tech which meets these specs yet). I do not want to look like I'm wearing a compass on my arm, though.
(I got curious, this is similar to what I'm describing, but still way too large and not quite the same: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gligo-e-ink-smartwatch-ha...)