Why don't smart watches use USB-C to recharge?

I have an apple watch… it charges over ether and can teleport me to Mars ocasionally, on a full charge.

Can’t wait to smash it with a hammer, same as my iphone.

When my latest Fitbit dies, I'll be taking a look at the UNA watch.

USB-C charging and repairable.

The only thing lacking is some Fediverse presence.

kickstarter
Oh damn that's unfortunate, wake me up when it's a real product
Man that's a taco ugly in your face logo to always have at the bottom of your watch face. It's not subtle at all.
All kidding aside, support for self-hosted server or just a local program to store and visualize your data would be amazing
No mention if it is waterproof so i bet it isn't. Modular and waterproof are tough to achieve simultaneously.
Edit: see below. It does not yet have a waterproof rating but is not currently submersible.
- it is explicitly mentioned : IPX8

I was looking at a garment descent watch for scuba diving. They don't use usbc directly on the watch because of the water rating

At that scale, the connector and the necessary electronics are too large.

Let’s ignore the iPod nano 6th gen, which managed to fit a 30 pin dock connector and a headphone jack into a watch sized body
- With vastly lower power requirements compared to a smartwatch
Some watches already have USB - C. but I find it interesting to see if you are correct or not.
I would see standardizing wireless charging as a decent alternative...if it didnt take up even more space.
- It's also hard to make a port like that water resistant. Using wireless charging is easier to make flat and seal tightly.
- It's not that it's too large to exist, but it's certainly large enough that it'll make a dent in the battery space, and smartwatches are already battery-starved compared to dumb ones.
  Its a terrible idea for a number of reasons, but as everybody else is saying, that doesn't mean you give up on standardization.
- I have the pixel watch 2, and waterproofing is very important to me when it comes to a smartwatch. I work in healthcare and have to wash my hands upwards of 30 times a day. If I had to take off my watch every time or gamble on a rubber flap adequately covering the charging port, it simply would not be worth the hassle.
- Some do, but the limitations of usb C (or any physical plug) are present and while it sounds nice in principle to have all the devices use the same cord it’s in general not worth the sacrifices that others have mentioned like it taking up extra room and the increased likelihood of water/sweat/particulate ingress
And yet, I literally have one on my wrist now. It's not noticeably bigger than the Pixel 3 watch.
Here's a video of it in action - https://tube.tchncs.de/w/vYTnG6eKghnicdNj5nkhVx
- This is confirmation bias, you know it’s possible so you’re discounting downsides.
  Yes, a connector can fit in the watch, but the internal footprint of the connector is comparatively huge. All the other components of the watch would need to be designed to fit around a large connector essentially directly in the middle of the device internals.
  If that’s really important to you, more power to you. I don’t have an issue with it existing. I do have a bit of a problem with pretending that compromises aren’t being made in features to accommodate it.
  A standardized magnetic pogo pin connector would meet my needs quite a bit better, personally.

I can't imagine how filthy the port would get on mine. Industrial work places and open ports are not~~conductive~~ conducive to the healthy life of electronics.

Btw, using fiddly electronics in a work environment is neither.
Not conductive? Isn’t that a good thing?
I don't know if you looked at the photo in my post - but there's a rubber flap covering the USB-port.
- Yeah. That makes it splash resistant, not water and grime proof. I have a pair of bone conduction headphones I wear at work with that flap and I still have to use contact cleaner on that port like at least once every couple of weeks.

From listening to a 1hr presentation by a furry in VR chat. Its likely because USB C is bloated. Its to complicated if all you need is power delivery in a small form factor.

You could use a usb c connector and not comply with the rest of the spec maybe idk shit about electronics.

As I understand it you can do USB-C at a basic 5V level with 2 resistors, and for a watch that would be plenty of power.
- yeah but that wouldnt be USB C because usb C is a standard that requires a ton of different things like double way data and power rails and handle 60watts etc. If you just need 5v then you can do it in a much smaller way via another connector or even wirelessly.
  I'm gonna assume you know more about this and I do because i cant even light up an LED in a circuit.
You know what you need?
Mini USB-C! ^/s
This sounds like an authoritative post. Thread over.
- Unfortunately it's a bit of a misinterpretation. Yes the overall USB C spec is complicated, and cables can support different things without being labelled clearly, but you can use it just to deliver power much more simply.

The Verge says:

These devices are too dang small, and the technology isn’t there yet. Most standard connectors, like USB-C, are too large to fit within a smartwatch or on devices that are meant to mold to your body. The smaller the device, the more difficult this becomes.

To which I say:

Bullshit!

Watches are small, but the USB-C connector isn't massive.

The USBC plug may not be "massive" but it still adds more bulk to the watch.

it might be rubbish as both a watch, Android device, and masc-coded jewellery - but it shows that USB-C is viable for devices of this class.

just because cheap ass watches use USBC ports doesn't mean it's a good idea. you need to know how these USBC watches actually hold up in the long run before you make that judgement.

I miss my pebble. It was such a good watch. It would last a week on one charge with eink.
The power connector was the fiddliest thing in the world and proprietary so when it failed and the batter failed soon after...the watch was dead.
- yeah a standard charger would be nice, but I'm not sure the answer is USBC.
- Pebble is coming back.
  https://repebble.com/
- I have a Garmin watch. Lasts 2+ weeks on a charge depending on how I use it.
- I'm still using my Amazfit Bip. When new, it could go 6 weeks on a single charge. After about 7 years, I still get about 2 weeks -- enough for me not to bother looking for a replacement.
- I have an almost new pebble time steel in a box on a shelf. When they did the Kickstarter and then basically shut down right after I couldn't bring myself to part with it. It's probably worth a few bucks.
- Get a BangleJS2; it's þe spiritual successor to Pebble, and it's better in many ways.
- I also had all the Pebble, and technology has come a long way since.
  The incoming Pebble revival uses the nRF52840 chip, which they estimate the battery life to around 30 days, from the usual 7 days.
  I settled on something a bit more classic, I bought a Casio GBD-200 which has bluetooth connectivity, can display basic notifications and do some step counting. It works on a CR2032 battery that lasts about 2 years, no recharge needed.

A usb-c port would be a large percentage of the volume of your standard wearable. Percentage that could be used for battery

Most wearable chargers are a few flat contacts or a tiny qi charger coil

Because the port and the associated internal hardware would take up a huge amount of space.

It's not much space to a smartphone, but to a device the size of a watch, the USB-C port would end up being the largest internal component.

Wireless charging is the answer for most watches, though it means cases can't be all metal and glass.

I assume you mean having a USB-C port on the side of the watch. Having that port would allow water to get in to the case, the cradle-style charges used by smart watches allow the case to be sealed to prevent water damage. Even if you are careful about not wearing the watch when bathing, or in the rain, or in a pool, its unlikely you remove you watch every time you wash your hands or wash dishes.

The article goes into this.
- I think the better question is, why can't wireless charging be more universal. We had decades of 500 different competing phone chargers. (as the famous XKCD comic https://xkcd.com/927/ ) mocks.
  yet we don't seem to be getting anywhere near the idea of a universal wireless charge system.

My ~~spoon~~ USB-C port is too big

eta: JFC, who wrote this?

Here is a modern smartwatch with USB C
Picture of a fucking brick with straps

Seriously, none of those "examples" are anything I would consider wearing, and I have clubs for hands

This is very dumb.

Now, if it was annoyed by magnetic pogo connectors not being standard we could talk. Wireless for watches, too.

Nice that watches ranging from £16 to £200 already support USB-C. My two Garmin watches both have (incompatible) unique charging/data ports.

4x the volume

16 times the detail
- 64 times the power but I can't read Braille (ungh)

Don't watches use pads to recharge with a usbc? My samsung did.

Galaxy watch is not technically Qi but WPC compatible and I've ised a number of qi chargers that have worked with it. Also charges directly off my phone via power share. I would prefer cramming more battery into the thing rather than cramming a USB port into it.