Digital squares are perfect, so why aren’t we all wearing them?

I suppose it comes down to variance and uniformity.

People love digital watches, as you do, for many reasons, one of which is their GADA uber-utilitarianism. They tell time more accurately than any mechanical watch. They are cheaper (which some see a plus, others a minus) than mechanical… all this stuff we know.

However, people wear watches for their intricacy, to display status (a la Veblen), because they can.

Its not all about telling the time, nor is it about accuracy… unless you are timing something precise like the burn of an engine in space… I’m sure there is a manufacturer that doesn’t like to talk about it’s exploits there.

I will admit I don’t like G-Shocks, at all. I get that people love them, but they aren’t for me. I have an F91W that I’ve not worn in years. My heart will always be with mechanicals because there is something uniquely human in them, less of the robot.

Efficiency, utility and precision isn’t everything. I suppose, for want of a better expression, where is the ‘soul‘ or personality in them.

I’ll be shouted down, but hey…keep it civil.

well i hate setting the time for the g shock, got to watch youtube tutorial every single time. but it is the most practical watch of all time

You’re absolutely correct, we aren’t really looking for perfection. Or we have very different views on what is perfect. Either way, one watch just doesn’t appeal to everybody. 

I wear this while working and while sleeping...Teddy Bear

I don't have a square G-Shock. The only one I have is GA-2100 CasiOak in a jellyfish case. I tend to wear it not so much as other watches because the original band starts causing discomfort after several hours of wearing and I think that CasiOak on a NATO looks really weird. I want to buy a BW-5610 as my apocalypse watch. I like the looks and size and solar movement. But haven't pulled a trigger yet. 

Well this strap certainly look more comfortable than the standard plastic fantastic. I prefer to keep mine on a combi-bracelet.

I use Ritchie strap adapters so I can use 20mm 2 piece straps... not big fan of nato straps 

Me neither. Too bulky, ugly, don't fit well with long sleeves, not really used in the army. 

Comfort could be better. Though it's far from the worst.

And it's easy to mistake the time for one of the other modes at a glance because they all look roughly the same. This is my biggest issue.

That's why I go for the MIP display or just ana-digi combo. 

It's the breast of both worlds.

First may I say — kudos on a brilliantly-written post that poses some fascinating scenarios.

One I enjoy in particular:

They are functional and we don’t do functional well because we are illogical creatures.

In the 1982 movie, Blade Runner, Nexus 6 Replicant, Roy Batty, explained to one of his creators, J.F. Sebastian, when challenged to demonstrate some super human parlor tricks — “We're [no] computers, Sebastian. We're physical."

Your comment on one of the rules of horoligicaly-inclined thermodynamics reminded me of this quote which blurts blatant irony…as it is exclaimed from the mouth of an otherwise functionally-perfect automaton.

Perhaps this helps me understand my own metallurgically-oozing sentiments when I look down and see on my wrist my own Square G-Shock. 

Nice post but i have to disagree on legibility. Do you really have a harder time reading 10:36 pm vs an analog picture? Maybe you are simply used to it? 

Personally, I love my G Shocks but I do do wear my mechanicals more. It's because they are greedy demanding bastards always hungry for wrist time. My quartz watches don't need constant care and feeding. 

And when I go out, yes it's more a fashion statement to wear an beautiful analog watch. It's all about vanity I suppose. 

metal clad G-Shocks is something over which I'm undecided. On one hand it does look more upscale and even classy (shameless plug of my GM-S5600 below). 

On the other hand (beside also having there five fingers) I can't stop wondering if having a metal jacket isn't pointless for a G-Shock. 

First of all, they ain't squares, these are rectangles. I think, Casio does not make the best use of the available space. About a third of the area (at best) is used for time display, a lot of the reminder for unchanging text such as "Casio G-SHOCK" or "Illuminator", or "waterproof", etc.

As far as digital display designs go, I say Lorus does a better job than Casio.

So...do you wear a Lorus all the time and if not why?

I have a "digital square" although I'm not keen on adding another digital watch any time soon.

I think dress ability is a valid point. However, I also think that for the younger gen digital now means vintage and quaint. I can see a time when these digital designs will become nostalgic and sought after. 

For example, my gwm5610 with a fabric strap evokes retro digital vibes for me. There's already a retro digital market evolving right now. It's only a matter of time. 

I have the same G-shock. Absolutely love it. It truly is a tool watch for me. If I’m out camping or fishing, or working in the yard: G-shock. Do I need to time something or need to know precise, atomic time? G-shock. 
 

But when I want something aesthetically pleasing, that wows with its engineering and its union of art and science: mechanical watch. 

It's undeniably very orange.

For me, I just love the square design. I’m a sucker for squares and rectangles when it comes to watches. They take me back to the 80’s and 90’s (I was born in 1976). There’s something about them that makes me geek out every time I wear them.

The G-Shock that was issued to me when I was enlisted to the Navy back in 1994 was the DW-500C (I think). I lost it and am still beating myself up to this day.

Today, I have 2 squares and will continue to add more into my collection.

Watches, to me, are man jewelry.  

I play tennis in my G-Shock, but I'm mechanical when out and about.

So, do you consider that in your case the second possibility I raised is the one that applies to you?

It's absolutely take more effort for me to read numbers than to evaluate the angle of hands on a dial and I also explained that this is something I can do while using my peripheral vision and without paying attention. A digital watch on the other hand requires reading which necessitate attention and even with our brain ability to perform pattern recognition it's still take longer.

I would say so.  There are some squares that I would wear out, it's just that they would need to have pops of color or some other feature that attracts visual attention.

The recent orange NASA square caught my eye.

This post was so interesting that I literally just made an account to post a comment here. :)

Many people here have mentioned that reading analogue watches is much easier than digital for them but for me it is actually the complete opposite.

I actually got into watches because I found it challenging to read analogue and as a child I wanted to be able to read analogue clocks as fast as my grandparents and parents did. I want to point out that I'm a 2000s kid. I was 6 when Steve Jobs revealed the iPhone for example. :) So growing up with digital time, I only learned analogue in school and didn't really use it at all.

What you have mentioned here about being a ble to visualise analogue time is really interesting and I agree that sometimes seeing the angle really helps us to see how long we have rather than just numbers. However, I am still much better at reading digital. A habit I have is to always double check the time on my phone after reading my watch because I still sometimes get the time wrong. For me, reading digital time is instantaneous and it takes time for me to "decode" analogue time. 

Getting back to the question you asked about why we are not all wearing digital squares, in my case it's because it's not the reason I got into watches. I got into watches because I was fascinated with analogue faces and frustrated with being very slow when trying to read it. It started as something I wanted to practice and developed into a larger passion (though admittedly still a pretty new one). I've come to like digital watches as well though.

I agree with @ckim4watches when they say that digital "squares" have a retro charm to them but I go down that road with LCD screens when it comes to Tamagotchis released in the 1990s to early 2000s. That's just where my retro digital passion lies.

Hopefully this rant was somewhat interesting and came from a different perspective. :)

And it's a perspective that I respect.

I went through a phase of all digital when they were a novelty but one day I saw something that was simply brilliant: A small square watch with hands and below them a small LCD display that could show the date or the seconds and I went "WOW!!" This was amazing, all the benefits of analog and digital combined into such a neat package! Eventually I became a wearable technology pioneer and drifted back to plain watches a few years ago to regain my sanity. I wrote a post about the experience not long ago and you can read it if that interest you.

Presently I'm definitively more analog than digital. I don't hate digital and would happily have other digital besides my G-Shocks if only they were more popular.

I remember “ Hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy when one of the things extra terrestrials knew of earthlings like our loveable hero Arthur Dent was pretty much “ almost harmless and enamoured by how clever they were inventing the digital watch “ so there is that , . yes we may be imperfect unpredictable creatures , but I believe the pinnacle of watch tech is the triple flyback chronograph by the venerable A Lange & Sonne and the 1815 chronograph. Now they are undeniably pretty objects and easy to read the time , digital watches are what you wear to work if you dig ditches , climb ladders , paint houses fix cars etc etc . Handy to let you know when its lunch time :)

You wont get knocked down at a zebra crossing wearing that ! I like it ! 

It's neat that Lange can make that, but I'm not sure what I would use it for.  Pretty, though!

This is the way