Phosphor starts selling E Ink watches

You may remember that super rare E Ink watch we gave away a while back -- the company only handbuilt nine of 'em, and we were lucky enough to get our hands on one. Well, it looks like the club is about to get a little bigger: Phosphor is now selling two models of watch with the same E Ink display for $250, one with a leather band and one with a polyurethane band. Just like the originals, the watch can switch from white-on-black to black-on-white, and also displays the time, date, or just the E Ink logo on its face. Oh -- you know we're totally giving another one these away later on, so check back in a couple hours tomorrow for your chance to score one.

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Dec 18th 2007 3:01PM]

So what's so special about this photoshopped picture of a watch?

[jtc970 @ Dec 18th 2007 3:14PM]

Reading isn't your strong suit?

[Hax Or @ Dec 18th 2007 4:11PM]

Ah, I get the equation. Photoshop = Not Real.

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Dec 18th 2007 3:05PM]

You know Casio is going to have a watch that changes colors in about a year for $35 at Wal-Mart. Why spend $250 on this gimmick?

[Hax Or @ Dec 18th 2007 4:11PM]

Wal-mart's product does not use E-Ink.

[David Clark @ Dec 18th 2007 5:37PM]

Because e-ink makes your watch look like an etch-a-sketch! Duh!

What's so great about e-ink for a watch application? With no backlighting, you can't tell the time in poorly lit conditions. It isn't attractive compared to regular watches.

And can't be because of eye strain either. Cripes. If your eyes are bulging, it isn't from looking at your watch.

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Dec 18th 2007 11:03PM]

What I meant is it will only take about a year until Casio has some watch that changes colors just like that overpriced E-ink watch; and Wal-Mart will sell it for like $35.

[Scott @ Dec 18th 2007 3:09PM]

Hope it keeps time better than it shows in the promo picture. Says 10:10 in digital and 10:08 in analog...

[engadget @ Dec 18th 2007 3:13PM]

Unless that photo was taken on August 10th.

[anonymouspimp @ Dec 18th 2007 3:16PM]

August 10? why what is the significance of 8/10?

[Josh @ Dec 18th 2007 3:38PM]

Oh snap!

[Davin Black @ Dec 18th 2007 3:43PM]

Some just got pwned.

[RAD Moose @ Dec 18th 2007 4:54PM]

e-Ink is TEH FUTURE! =)

[Rocketboy @ Dec 19th 2007 10:39AM]

Too bad that if it was August 10th, according to their demo the display would read "10/10" not "10:10".

[Rocketboy @ Dec 19th 2007 10:39AM]

Too bad that if it was August 10th, according to their demo the display would read "10/10" not "10:10".

[Jeebus @ Dec 19th 2007 1:05PM]

E-ink is slow to update.

[Rob @ Dec 26th 2007 9:22PM]

It might help to remember that August is the 8th month of the year...

[jtc970 @ Dec 18th 2007 3:15PM]

Would be really nice if I could send my own designs to it.
Other than that, the price breaks my urge for it.

[Quincy @ Dec 18th 2007 3:15PM]

Okay, maybe I could understand Digital E-Ink watches. But what's the point of an Analog E-ink watch?? At that point you might as well use actual paper or in this case some other hard material to print on since that's what E-Ink is trying desperately to match and on an Analog watch the only thing that's going to move are the hands which in the representation above are physical anyway. :-)

[Quincy @ Dec 18th 2007 3:19PM]

Okay okay. so I didn't click on the link that took me to the website demo'ing the watch. My bad. I 'Kind of' get the point now. :) Still, not for $250.

[Che @ Dec 18th 2007 10:10PM]

Actually, a digital version probably wouldn't work very well. E-ink uses no power to keep the display the same, but uses a fair amount to refresh the screen, so a digital watch display that changed every second, instead of an analog that uses a second hand, would probably drain the batteries. On the other hand, I think it's pretty funny that a company called Phosphor makes watche without glowing watch hands (that use phosphor and either radium or tritium to glow)

[Ellianth @ Dec 18th 2007 3:30PM]

You know, every time I come on Engadget and read a watch story I'm reminded of that time when Engadget gave away that super-rare e-ink watch that I didn't...

Wait, they're for sale and you're giving another one away? Can you guys rig it so I win this time? Because I was so devistated from losing last time that I tried (and failed) to take my own life :'(.

Ok maybe imade the last part up, but I really wanted that watch. And is the one in the photo the same as the one EG gave away? It looks uglier for some reason.

[Ellianth @ Dec 18th 2007 3:43PM]

OMG!! I just went to the demo site and the Date for the date demo is 8/27. THAT'S MY BIRTHDAY!!!

More proof that engadget should rig this draw so i win. The watch is totally speaking to me!!

[Ben @ Dec 18th 2007 3:34PM]

Maybe if I didn't have to be constantly reminded that this was an E-ink watch. Seriously, allow us to remove the logo and you have a mush better looking product.

[Ellianth @ Dec 18th 2007 3:36PM]

What? Doesn't EVERY other watch have the makers logo on it's face?

[Hax Or @ Dec 18th 2007 4:16PM]

"Move it or lose it".

That means move the logo somewhere else so it's not the first thing that is seen.

Or lose it.

[murray @ Dec 18th 2007 4:52PM]

Agreed. My computer monitor doesn't have "LCD" permanently printed in the middle of the screen. I don't need my watch to advertise its display technology. Lame and tacky.

[Ellianth @ Dec 18th 2007 6:28PM]

Your computer may (some do have LCD written on them) not have LCD written on it. But I'm sure it has:

Manufacturer - Brand/model.

How is this any different?

[Andrew @ Dec 18th 2007 3:40PM]

From a watch guy's perspective, this thing is really tacky and cheap looking. If it ran on perpetual drive or something, I'd sorta get it, but it doesn't, so I don't. At that price, there'll be some slick ricks who pick it up for nostalgia's sake, but man, I wouldn't admit to owning one.

[Andrew @ Dec 18th 2007 3:41PM]

The logo is very large and tacky. Even without the logo, it looks like a $10 watch.

[Andrew @ Dec 18th 2007 3:42PM]

This reminds me of Diesel's lcd watch lineup from a few years ago.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0007ZP328.01-A2HLK9C2IWJJB7._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[Matt @ Dec 18th 2007 4:01PM]

I only buy atomic timekeeping watches. Waveceptors and the like. What's the point in spending money on a watch to keep you on time if it's not as accurate as it can be?

Give me e-ink and THAT, and I will be happy.

[Andrew @ Dec 18th 2007 4:54PM]

If that's all a watch is to you, then you'll never get it. Mechanical or Perpetual > *

[Richy @ Dec 18th 2007 7:25PM]

Really? To be honest, I love all gadgets; but there's no way I could ever own a watch that requires a battery to power it.

I love the old skool mechanical engineering that goes into a proper watch. A watch that just keeps working (well, if you have a watch winder!). A watch goes beyond basic gadgetery into the realms of art. I love the artisanal differences between (for example) a Longines and an IWC; or a Cartier and an Omega; Manometro, or Panerai. Watches are created over months by craftsmen, not minutes by the Chinese.

I love what my MacBook Pro or iPod Touch do, but I could never love the item like I love my IWC Spitfire Chronograph.

I guess that's the difference between gadgets and real craftsmanship.

[Andrew @ Dec 18th 2007 8:11PM]

Richy: Agreed! I own two mechanical (wind) watches and wouldn't trade them for a thing. My father collects watches as well, and I know when he passes I'll be receiving them. It's one of those things...if your father passes down, let's say, an ipod, or a plasma, it's nothing, just junk. If your father passes down a mechanical watch that could potentially last as long as you maintain it, that's just priceless, timeless.

[etrigan @ Dec 18th 2007 4:08PM]

Reading the company discription of this makes it seem a little more impressive of a tech, but with no functionality other than being a time piece (at least i don't see any on their site), doesn't seem worth the cost.

And I agree with Andrew, it is kinda tacky looking.

[christian.cantrell @ Dec 18th 2007 4:10PM]

You can read a detailed review (with good pictures) of the Phosphor E Ink watch here:

http://www.watchreport.com/2007/12/review-of-the-p.html

Christian

[Hax Or @ Dec 18th 2007 4:20PM]

Review? FTA: At $250, the Phosphor E Ink watch is an affordable, intriguing, and very unique timepiece.

That's an advertisement. It's not a review. Busted!

[Christian @ Dec 18th 2007 4:24PM]

Well, since I don't work for Art Technology (the company that owns the Phosphor brand), and since I have no affiliation with them whatsoever, I would call it a review.

Christian

[Davin Black @ Dec 18th 2007 4:12PM]

I'm not trying to sound like a hater, but does anyone really check their watch for the time anymore? I personally like this watch - large logo and all, but I feel like it'd be wasted on someone like me who checks their cellphone (or laptop, or radio head unit) for the time. I'm not saying NOT to make watches, but use the emerging e-paper technology where it'll gain the most use....on a cellphone (or laptop, or radio head unit, or PMP, etc)

[decypher44 @ Dec 18th 2007 4:23PM]

I honestly don't get the demand for e-ink. Seriously. I've done some reading, and read reviews. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[murray @ Dec 18th 2007 4:55PM]

It's very simple:

It's easy to read in bright light (including direct sun).

It causes less eye strain than light emitting displays.

It uses less power than light emitting displays.

[Andrew @ Dec 18th 2007 5:41PM]

Murray: Who cares? If your watch runs off battery, you know it's going to go dead. Unless this takes 500% less energy, it doesn't make a difference. You can read lcd's in the light just fine. Wtf's eyestrain?! You don't stare at your watch for hours on end.

[Jin @ Dec 18th 2007 4:46PM]

maybe, but it would be cool to get one for free.

[thethirdmoose @ Dec 18th 2007 6:02PM]

This isn't that great. My watch has a 2 GB flash drive in it.

[Rob @ Dec 18th 2007 6:23PM]

would be nice if it weren't so pricey, due to my active lifestyle (and never caring for it/actually taking it off before any dangerous activity) my watches generally last about 6 months, so i'm not about to spent ~£125 on a watch

[Jin @ Dec 18th 2007 7:09PM]

does anything else use this technology? E ink?

[anon @ Dec 18th 2007 7:23PM]

yes jin - splashplay.co .uk

[indiecognition @ Dec 18th 2007 10:36PM]

What happened to the giveaway?!? I was on here all day and haven't seen that follow-up you said would be a couple hours out. Worse yet, since I haven't won the free E Ink, I have no idea how long I've been sitting here clicking reload and diverting myself by delving into the fascinating Sponsored Links in the righthand column. E Ink watch, please!!! (Or I'll accept a Nobel in its lieu.;)

[Jin @ Dec 18th 2007 10:48PM]

ya, they haven't released any news on it that I've found.