Devon Watch - What do you think?
Devon Watch - What do you think?
Author
Discussion

andy tims

Original Poster:

5,598 posts

270 months

Sunday 5th December 2010
quotequote all
http://www.devonworks.com/

Me I think it's a pretentious "cheap" Urwerk wanna-be

The real Apache

39,731 posts

308 months

Sunday 5th December 2010
quotequote all
the website is enough to put me off, skipped intro and it hung

pacman1

7,324 posts

217 months

Sunday 5th December 2010
quotequote all
NeMiSiS said:
A conveyor belt inside a watch, it's all a bit cuddly toy. smile
I bet it's got sliding doors too! nuts

CommanderJameson

22,096 posts

250 months

Sunday 5th December 2010
quotequote all
Video of it in action here.

An article about it here.

Allegedly $15K.

Too big to wear, I think. But it takes all sorts.

cyberface

12,214 posts

281 months

Sunday 5th December 2010
quotequote all
Urwerk are still resolutely mechanical, no?

Devon aren't trying to be mechanical, the belts are run by motors so it's a battery-powered gadget. Basically they've managed to build some very low power stepper motors or some very high capacity batteries (I'd guess the former - the latter would have a seriously immense market outside of $15k watches…) and then bunged a few in a box with some thin belts and a custom ASIC with some fancy programming.

The belts and programming doesn't impress me to the tune of $15k. The motors do - if you can play with the watch like in the video a few times a day and not need to replace the batteries every week, then that's a serious step (heh) forward. However it's more about fancy *display* of time, rather than horology itself - the time signal for the Devon watch could be as inaccurate as my iPhone when it's off a network, for all I know. It may be even as inaccurate as a mechanical watch paperbag

But the clever mechanicals aren't there to measure time, are they? They're there to *display* the time and to perform tricks. Which isn't the same as a complicated mechanical movement IMO - the difference may be very subtle to a non-watch-geek but I think it's critical.

Hence no - the iPhone is a more impressive and important gadget of our time, and never cost more than £1000 (well I never paid more than a grand for one)