I can't imagine what $550 is paying for. Obviously not, as described in the article, its "pedestrian technology"--agreed, it's only slightly better than an inexpensive tabletop radio. And you sure as hell are not paying for an elegant or well thought out design, this thing is clunky and awkward looking with poorly proportioned elements.
@92BuickLeSabre: Agreed. The red indicator should remain stationary while the time loops behind it. So, basically it'd be a display of the edge of a circular clock.
It would be more accurate that way anyway; this method sort of implies you're making progress, when in reality, your life is flying past you as you waste it away on Gizmodo articles.
06/13/09
06/13/09
06/13/09
06/13/09
01/21/09
Even on this clock, they have to "reverse time" with the minutes just to keep going forward. One step forward? One step back.
You don't have that problem with a round clock. Know why?
Cause time is cyclical. Again and again.
01/21/09
It would be more accurate that way anyway; this method sort of implies you're making progress, when in reality, your life is flying past you as you waste it away on Gizmodo articles.
01/21/09