• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It is difficult to have a smart watch though. Think about it: you have a small chip with a wifi stack, bluetooth, even a camera slot, it consumes ~5mA when awake even when down clocked, but can at least save power by consuming ~1microA when asleep but it can never use its sleep states because it’s primary function is to display and update the time at all times.

    All because of a little boy, who won’t let me sleep!

    • go $fsck yourself
      link
      English
      51 month ago

      You’re describing a ton of features that a smart watch does not need. It doesn’t need wifi or a camera, for example.

      The thing is, there’s TONS of off-brand smart watches that can do constant heart rate monitoring, notifications, sleep tracking, and those more basic smart features very well. The problem is that they require proprietary apps and a cloud account you have no control over.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        You’re describing a ton of features that a smart watch does not need. It doesn’t need wifi or a camera, for example.

        I agree, I was just demonstrating that you could have a tiny chip packed full of features as well as optimized sleep states to really save on power, and it still runs out of power on the same scale as a smartphone, due to the sole reason that it’s not actually allowed to go to sleep and still function as a watch.

        Most get around this by not displaying the time unless you shake the watch awake (which I find hilarious), or running at extremely low clock-rates in which case the latency in user-interaction suffers.

        The problem is that they require proprietary apps and a cloud account you have no control over.

        Agreed. SQFMI’s Watchy powered by the fantastic ESP32 seemed promising, but despite having a full bluetooth/wifi stack is very limited in other features.