At that scale, the connector and the necessary electronics are too large.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2025
239 points (94.8% liked)
Technology
73771 readers
2914 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
If you mean a USB-C port in general, they can be made waterproof. If you mean something specific to putting one in the most compact form factor possible, that might be true.
And that requires more space than a typical port. In a compact device that is difficult. A flashlight is literally one of the simplest electronic devices there is and bulk is often a plus for comfort.
A flashlight is literally one of the simplest electronic devices there is
You might be surprised at everything going on inside a modern flashlight. I'll grant that it's probably easier to find room for extra seals around the port than in a smartwatch though.
Still not nearly as complex or compact as a smart watch. A little microcontroller versus an arm processor.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
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 wrote the post above. So far, the USB-C watch has lasted over 3 days and still has over 50% battery power.
Obviously, at that price it isn't running a cellular radio or GPS. BLE is amazingly efficient - as are the built in sensors.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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
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.
A standardized magnetic pogo pin connector
That's something I hadn't considered before. What a neat idea.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
While it would be lovely if watches could support Qi charging, they are just too small to make it work effectively
Ha ha ha.
I can charge my wife's Samsung watch off Qi on my phone. We had to learn how AND do it while on vacation when the Samsung inductive rig for it was left at home.
Worked like fucking gangbusters.
This article is shit.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
I don't know if you looked at the photo in my post - but there's a rubber flap covering the USB-port.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
I have a Garmin watch. Lasts 2+ weeks on a charge depending on how I use it.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
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.
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
You know what you need?
Mini USB-C! ^/s
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
All kidding aside, support for self-hosted server or just a local program to store and visualize your data would be amazing
load more comments
(5 replies)
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.
I mean, we are for phones. Qi2 is finally becoming more widespread, and the Qi1/Magsafe spec is quietly more compatible than its official support suggests.
Why this doesn't extend to watches and only partially to earbuds is a different question, but I at least the most likely devices to have wireless charging are getting there.
load more comments
(3 replies)
This is very dumb.
Now, if it was annoyed by magnetic pogo connectors not being standard we could talk. Wireless for watches, too.
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
Nice that watches ranging from £16 to £200 already support USB-C. My two Garmin watches both have (incompatible) unique charging/data ports.
Don't watches use pads to recharge with a usbc? My samsung did.
view more: next ›