Quadtec unveils pricey digital wristwatch
By Darren Murph 
posted Oct 23rd 2006 8:04AM
posted Oct 23rd 2006 8:04AM
While we've got no qualms with implausibly priced gizmos, nor with timepieces sporting integrated Bluetooth, drum machines, GPS, or breathalyzer functionalities, Quadtec seems to be asking a bit much for a watch that does little besides alternate the way you tell the time. For those who might actually enjoy learning a new way to read time, Quadtec's digital watch can be "set to show the number of minutes to the full hour," so you can have the presumable pleasure of "reading the time on a digital display as you would on an analog one." Aside from also displaying the current day / date, it only sports a simple backlight and alarm, while coming in a stealthy briefcase that packs orange, black, and stainless steel bands. Although it bears striking resemblance to a top-notch gumball toy, this uninspiring wristwatch demands a whopping 1,960 quarters (or $490, whichever you prefer).[Via I4U]
Doesn't Fossil's "Frank Gehry" line do exactly this, for $150? I assume Quadtec's watch does more than this? Maybe not.
I hate to nitpick, but your use of "implausibly" here is less than accurate. Before whipping out your thesaurus and picking the most educated sounding synonym for your article, you might want to consider the connotation of the word as well. Toodles!
Er... why is this not implausible? I find it hard to believe that anyone would price such a piece of junk so highly - hence the price is implausible. Cf the OED - also means outrageous, absurd, fanciful, preposterous - the price of thing is all of these.
Yes, the strict definition of the word is correct; it is a synonym of a word the author should have chosen. However, as I said, the connotation of the word needs to be taken into consideration as well - not simply the strict definition. That is why implausible is not an accurate word to use in this article.
How about the musical notes on the bottom right button? Maybe it plays music too?