comment: >
  
  Portable quantum AI assistant (pocket version) confirmed for 2047.
context: This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
  Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
  (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
  Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >
  
  Im never giving up my wrist-watches.
  I'll die before i surrender, Tim. >
  
  I own a dozen watches. Got an Apple Watch Series 4 and wore that one exclusively for like 4 years. In the last 3 months I’ve only been wearing it at night. 
  I am back to wearing my ~~nice~~ analog watches baby! 
  Edit: They aren’t even all nice in terms of cost or how fancy they are so I edited the last line. >
  
  Digital watches can be nice too. I'll never give up my G-Shock. >
  
  I have some 15$ aluminum digitals from AliExpress and I consider them nice >
  
  I have a $15 dollar Casio watch I got from Walmart that's older than my cats and I haven't had tk change the batteries or adjust time except for DST >
  
  DST? Is it by any chance the  Casio AE-1200 ? >
  
  Nope. Simpler than that >
  
  The ability to know what time it is in 1 second instead of 3 seconds is overrated. >
  
  laughs in old-fashioned analogue quartz watch I can take sneak peeks at the time during meetings. >
  
  I'm sitting in a meeting right now - just had to look to the corner of my screen to check the time.  
  But I have to admit, those old-fashioned watches do have their own kind of charm. >
  
  Oh shit, are normal watches considered old-fashioned watches?? I feel like I just aged 40 years… I didn’t even know that smart watches were considered watches before this comment. >
  
  Do you not call your smart phone “phone”? >
  
  I do, but I also call my smart watch a “phone”, because the things I do with it are much closer to what I do with a phone than with a watch >
  
  If your smart watch was sitting on a table and you needed it, you’d ask someone “Hey, could you pass me my phone?” instead of “Hey, could you pass me my watch?” ? >
  
  In the case that I really need to make I distinction, I would go back to calling it a “smart watch,” but in reality I would start by calling it “that thing”.
  At no point would I ever just refer to it as a watch, it feels like an entirely different device to me. >
  
  Yeah, but I could say the same thing about modern smart phones and what we had before smart phones.
  You can call people on smart phones, but otherwise they are entirely different devices than what phones used to be.
  You were a smart watch on your wrist and it displays the time, but otherwise is entirely different.
  In both cases, they were do both serve the primary practical purpose of the original device they are named after, plus do a ton of other stuff that is actually more important as far as what you use the device for. >
  
  Yeah, that’s the point… I was still calling them “cell phones” until like 2 years ago. I’m not trying to say that I’m right, I’m trying to say that I’m behind the times. >
  
  No sure if it fits the situation, but reminds me of this >
  
  /r/relevantxkcd >
  
  I'm guessing most peolle wearing wrist watches did not abandon them when cell phones arrived >
  
  Correct. We didn't.
  For the same reason people didn't abandon phones when smart watches came out; they were still useful.
  There's still people wearing wrist watches today >
  
  Color me shocked.  I mean there is only an entire industry selling watches lol.
  I wear them.  They serve as a form of jewelry really but are still very functional.  Much rather look at my watch for the time than have to fish my phone out of my pocket. >
  
  Couple hundred dollars to buy a smart watch every 2-5 years or $1000 to buy a watch that will last 100+ years? Seem like a worse investment to buy a smart watch, especially since some jewelry watches increase in value over time. >
  
  You're not wrong, but the increase in value argument made me laugh. A watch that increases in value costs $50K and you need to buy 10 $5K watches just for the privilege to buy one >
  
  My dad bought a $1600 Omega Seamaster in 1997, now it is worth about $2500-3100 by going off of auctions and listings for similar Seamasters in similar condition. You don't need a super-expensive watch but the difficulty is knowing if it will increase in value over time or not to outpace or retain its original cost. >
  
  If your dad had put that in an index fund it would be worth about $9K.... >
  
  Hey! Don't ruin his dream of becoming a mega-watch investing mogul