Timex rolls out Ironman iControl watch

We heard it was coming, then we knew it was coming, but Timex has now finally gotten all official with its iPod-controlling Ironman iControl watch. As has already been revealed, the watch uses an RF transmitter to let you control all the basic functions of your iPod (or iPhone in airplane mode), which'll let you keep it safely tucked away during your workout (or other less athletic activities). Otherwise, you'll get some fairly standard sport watch features, including a 50-lap memory recall chronograph, a training log, various timers and alarms and, of course, Indiglo backlighting. You'll also get your choice of gray/black, pink, blue, orange or green color schemes, with each setting you back $125.

[Adam @ Aug 2nd 2007 2:31PM]

Now Nike get off your arshe and release your Nike+ watches!!

[Rob @ Aug 2nd 2007 2:43PM]

$125 ??? Are they out of their minds?
I've always bought Timex watches because they're actually tough and some of them very stylish. They're also very reasonably priced. But, $125 just because it can send some RF signals to control simple commands on the iPod is beyond expensive.

I'd be willing to buy it around $60-80 max. Anything beyond that, forget it.

[LinuxIdiot @ Aug 2nd 2007 2:47PM]

I have nothing but to agree with the above poster about the price. I don't run, but I wouldnt mind something to keep me from having to wrangle it out of my pocket to switch songs when I am busy. Not to mention I will feel slightly like Dick Tracy :O

[LinuxIdiot @ Aug 2nd 2007 2:49PM]

I have nothing but to agree with the above poster about the price. I don't run, but I wouldnt mind something to keep me from having to wrangle it out of my pocket to switch songs when I am busy. Not to mention I will feel slightly like Dick Tracy :O

[ryanworrell @ Aug 2nd 2007 2:54PM]

It says it available for sale on Apple and Timex's website but I cannot find it on either site?? WTF

[Brian @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:26PM]

What ever happened to that watch that you could sync with your computer monitor? I don't really want one, I just want to know why exactly it was pulled from production.

[Ian @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:47PM]

That would be the original Data Link watch. It cost something like $120 new, (almost $180 in today's dollars). I stopped using mine when I screwed up the alarm while replacing the battery. Hold it up to the screen and it synched with the computer by reading the lines flashing on the screen. The sync process was pretty tenuous, but there are multiple models of new Data Link USB watches available almost everywhere now for roughly $60.

[Ellianth @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:31PM]

So having ipod controls is supposed to make up for it being so ugly? Whatever happened to function AND beauty? If I'm paying $125 for a watch it better be made of metal and be pretty.

[snapa @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:35PM]

Yes, because that's exactly what people want when running. A heavy metal watch that's pretty to look at.

[Ellianth @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:40PM]

You must have trouble lifting up a cup of water.

So let me get this straight. You were a different watch for everything you do? One for tv, one for running, one for reading, etc?

I don't know about you, but if I paid $125 for a watch that can control my music player, I'd wear it for a lot more than just running.

[snapa @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:51PM]

You must be joking. The balance of my arms swinging would be different. My sweat rubbing against the metal band would surely annoy me. Thus why I don't even wear a watch while running.

On your other point, I actually do wear a different watches for different things. I'm not going to wear a rubber Nike wristband watch for running to an event where I need to be dressed nicely. Nor am I going to wear a Citizen's watch while running.

You crybabies are incredible, if you think it's too pricey, then don't buy it. The marketing team at Timex doesn't care what you think about their price. There will be people that buy it. Speak with your wallet.

[Ellianth @ Aug 2nd 2007 4:02PM]

I can understand wearing a watch for going out and another for ordinary things. But you still make it sound like there is a watch for Reading, running, walking, and skipping.

"You crybabies are incredible, if you think it's too pricey, then don't buy it. The marketing team at Timex doesn't care what you think about their price. There will be people that buy it. Speak with your wallet."

And if any company wants to get ahead in the game they better care what their consumers think. Would you only want to control your media player via a remote only when running? I didn't say it was pricey, i said it was ugly for something that's 125 dollars.

As for the balance issue, metal watches don't weigh much more than plastic ones. If you lose your balance off a couple grams you might not want to be running with headphones on since your ears help you balance.

P.S. Since when are we only allowed to comment on products that we own or will run out and buy the day it comes out?

[snapa @ Aug 2nd 2007 4:18PM]

Fine, let's translate this into something you might understand a little better. Do you wear different shoes for different things? Are you going to wear $100 dress shoes to go running in? Might as well, since you're spending the $100 dollars.

Sure, people use running shoes as casual shoes, but then again, many people don't.

And what is Timex marketing this towards? Let's have a look at the article: "The days of fumbling for your iPod in mid-stride are over,” said Heberto Calves, Vice President of Sports Marketing. So specifically, for working out. If you want to use it for other purposes, go for it. But keep in mind, it was made with the runner/workout person in mind. Function over fashion.

As for the balance issues. Rubber band watches fit MUCH better than metal watches. I wear my metal band watches a bit loose, so I'd have it constantly clunking against my wrist/hand. What fun would that be?

P.S. - You're not, but that certainly does make you a crybaby.

[Ellianth @ Aug 2nd 2007 4:36PM]

You are aware that metal band watches ARE ADJUSTABLE, right? If you adjusted it to fit your hand it wouldn't be clunking around.

Your shoe analogy doesn't work. Media controlling wristwatch != shoe. Maybe media controlling shoe, but that would be more work than taking the device out of your pocket.

I'll let your 'it's made for running comment go' and ask this. Just because it's made for running does that make it any less ugly?

[snapa @ Aug 2nd 2007 4:57PM]

I'm quite aware that metal bands are adjustable. So you're saying that I should take the time before and after I run to adjust my wrist watch? What an incredible waste of time.

My analogy certainly does work. You said it yourself. You wanted style and function. Sure, a shoe doesn't control a DAP. But it does protect your feet, and provide whatever style you'd like, style and function.

Sure, it's certainly ugly. But I'm not going to buy it. Nor did I start a comment about how it was ugly. Which brings us back to the point that you're a crybaby.

[Ellianth @ Aug 2nd 2007 5:11PM]

Why would you need to adjust the watch more than once? Does your hand get fatter on days when you don't run? If you know what you're doing adjusting a metal band watch takes all of five minutes. Yes indeed, what a waste of time. Stop changing up your story on how you wear watches. If you buy a watch just for running and it has a metal band, adjust it once.

And no your shoe analogy doesn't work. A watch that functions as more than a watch is not the same as a shoe that only functions as a shoe. I've seen lots of sports equipment that does multiple things and they aren't all ugly. Running shoes are for running, are they all ugly?

So saying something is ugly makes me a crybaby? Just thought I'd point out that you just said the watch was ugly too, crybaby. You go around calling people names to make your point, I guess that makes you a troll. I'd rather be a crybaby than a troll.

[snapa @ Aug 2nd 2007 5:34PM]

Wow you really can't read can you? I wear my watch loose. So yes, if it was a metal band, I'd have to adjust it every time. Ya know, since I'd be wearing the watch for reasons other than running. Although you just said you'd want to use the watch for just running? Odd, seeing as it looks as if you'd want an all around watch.

It's not a 1:1 comparison, but certainly even you could find the similarities.

Again, your reading comprehension skills baffle me. "But I'm not going to buy it. Nor did I start a comment about how it was ugly."

I'm done with you, crybaby.

[Haxxy @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:44PM]

Wow, what a price. You can get a Home Theater Watch for cheaper than that.

-Haxxy

[mlody11 @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:46PM]

I wish people would stop using crap technology that is specific to only one vendor/device. Use Bluetooth 2.0 with AVRCP people! That way its universal and makes the apple company get with the program on remote control with ipods.

[SuperChuck @ Aug 2nd 2007 4:22PM]

To my knowledge, the iPod/iPhone doesn't support A2DP or AVRCP.

My Blackjack does, though. :D

[Josh @ Aug 2nd 2007 4:17PM]

I would prefer a running watch with the following features:

1. Heart Rate monitor - For biofeedback training.
2. Pedometer - For distance on those off-trail runs.
3. The ability to sync with my computer.
4. Water-proof
5. Ipod control


I would pay $300 (perhaps more - depending what it is made out of) for this watch. Perhaps a good watch company like Suunto could come out with something like this.

[paloooz @ Aug 2nd 2007 4:31PM]

They should change the word "pedometer" to "peppersmeter."

[Lex @ Aug 2nd 2007 4:28PM]

So this is only for the iPod? What is up with that? I mean ok if they have one for each company thats their choice but why only make one thats also only compatible with an iPod?

[paloooz @ Aug 2nd 2007 4:33PM]

Because it's the industry standard MP3 player? Why is it that 99% of software companies only write software for Windows? Because it's what everyone has. Whether you like it or not.

[mattnico @ Aug 2nd 2007 6:33PM]

snapa, grow up. Seriously. Crybaby? What are we, three? It's a watch. I'm not going to buy it, you're not going to buy it, so why do you care? Move on with your life. It's not that important.

[Photodork618 @ Aug 2nd 2007 6:10PM]

Response too

Rob @ Aug 2nd 2007 2:43PM

$125 ??? Are they out of their minds?
I've always bought Timex watches because they're actually tough and some of them very stylish. They're also very reasonably priced. But, $125 just because it can send some RF signals to control simple commands on the iPod is beyond expensive.

I'd be willing to buy it around $60-80 max. Anything beyond that, forget it.



WOW ROB your one cheep guy. I mean, If your willing to pay for an ipod or an iphone, you have the money to buy a $125 remote watch for it. Unless you got your ipod from your aunt Mil for your birthday. Then I would say get a job and stob being a little slut.

[Bill Walkling @ Aug 3rd 2007 10:03AM]

My wife is an avid runner and she spends this amount once a month on new running shoes. SO the price point of the watch I think is pretty reasonable.

[luke @ Aug 2nd 2007 6:34PM]

Heart Rate monitor - For biofeedback training. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think what they really need to do is integrate the bodybugg with the timex watch and the iphone. Iphone in pocket, watch in the arm, and bodybugg on the bi. All wireless. This would be siick!

[Me @ Aug 2nd 2007 8:33PM]

I think $125 is a reasonable price. I mean, it's for ipod/iphone, right? So, if anyone can afford ipod/iphone, why not this, which is cheaper?

[kawliga @ Aug 4th 2007 9:00PM]

Anyone who thinks this watch is too expensive does not buy $100 running shoes every six months, and has DEFINITELY not had their running totally revolutionized by Nike+iPod.

Sorry you flabby dorks, this thing rocks and I'd spend $200 on it.

[MikeInAustin @ Aug 13th 2007 9:27PM]

Wow, there's some fun commenting on this one!

I run marathons and run between 40 to 60 miles a week depending on the point of training I'm in. I think I am their target market.

The blue watch is ugly, I agree, but they have 6 or 7 different colors. I run with the Timex Ironman 50 lap memory watch that looks identical to this (minus the iPod buttons), and it's the perfect watch for a runner. I know the buttons by heart, can hit the lap splits on track workouts without looking etc...

I also use an iPod Nano on an armband when I run my longer runs (7 to 20+ mile runs). Once you're up into longer distances, it's annoying to have to reach over to your arm, feel your way around for the right button to skip a song or rewind, or mess with the volume. On a 3 mile run, it's no big deal, but trust me that the further you go, the more intriguing it is to have the ability to quickly click your watch to move to a new song, or raise or lower the volume.

I could see myself buying this watch, but it's not the watch i'm concerned with, it's the size of the receiver piece that plugs in to my Nano.

One last thing, to comment on the debate on what watch to wear when... The watch is called the Timex Ironman iControl, and not Timex Fancy iControl.

Hope my insight helps somewhat.

[Nana @ Dec 17th 2007 6:30PM]

The iControl watch is selling for an average of $75.00-90.00 at various on-line retailers. Great timing (no pun intended) for Christmas buying.