Thanks for your comment, I think you make some very good points. I agree, out of the box thinking is definitely the way to go and I am a big supporter of it, but in my mind watchmaking is as much about craftsmanship and design as it is about technical ingenuity and I feel that this piece simply ignores that fact. Brands do have to work considerably harder to differentiate themselves but at the time I think wearability will always remain a factor and in my opinion this watch is simply not wearable.

However, as I mentioned in the article I certainly do recognise and applaud the technical complexity of this piece and what has been achieved here. Although in my mind maybe they’ve tried to fit just a little too much in one watch?

How is it any different than the Tag Heuer V4 Monaco and other watches looking to alternative means for powering movements or other out of the box features? There are chain driven watches (Cabestan Winch Tourbillion ), chrono’s that are activated by pressing the crystal of the watch(Jaeger-LeCoultre’s AMVOX2 Chronograph Racing), hell, even watches with moon dust on the dial(Romain Jerome DNA moon dust), etc. While I agree that this is targeting a certain client and lifestyle, I encourage more out of the box (wayyyyyy out of the box) thinking like this in watch making. Look at Ulysse Nardin powering cell phones with watch technology. The future has a lot in store as watch brands continue to find methods to differentiate themselves from other brands. Thanks