You’re reading Signal vs. Noise, a publication about the web by 37signals since 1999.

not that clever, actually. Batteries weight too much, which makes difference when it comes to power consumption

Also, you have to tear off the stickers and labels of any batteries you wanna use otherwise it looks silly.

Both the aforementioned negatives don’t bother me, that thing is beautiful

Not attractive for me.

Like the Marshall amp with custom-made volume knobs at 11.

A case of designer designed for him/herself, but not with the habits of general public use in mind.

Then again the same can be said about the QWERTY keyboard.

Extraordinarily hard to read.

Nice, but like others have already said: L’art pour l’art

It’s interesting, but not very ideal. Replace those black batteries with duracells and you have art deco appropriate for a trailer park home.

A case of designer designed for him/herself, but not with the habits of general public use in mind.

Strangely enough, if you read the article you find out that it is a piece in a design show and not available to the general public.

Show-y design, hard to read/use. Easy test: what time is it on that clock shown in the picture? How long did it take you to figure that out? I actually can’t tell.

Clock faces are a solved design problem, we are taught how to read them in school, so improving on that is pretty hard to impossible, and this isn’t an improvement.

Pretty is not necessarily clever. And it won’t be pretty with standard batteries. And the other complaints from other posters.

Nice gimmick, that’s all.

Dear Haters, I don’t care what you say, I want one!

The cleverness I like about it is that since clocks need both a power source and hands, by using one thing for both there’s an elegance you don’t get with clocks with slidey battery compartments in the back.

I would find it just as beautiful with Duracells. Evereadies, maybe not so much, but maybe that’s just a question of taste…

It is clever. The thing that powers the clock is the same thing that is being used to tell the time. I like it.

While great design by definition is a perfect harmony of form and function, I believe that sometimes its ok to break that rule. Case in point here, the form obviously outweighs the function when it comes to how we were all taught to tell time, however I like this. It’s very similar to the Nooka watches… It took me a few days of wearing one to be able to glance at my wrist and instantly tell the time however I get more compliments on that watch than any other with a traditional display.

Toilet paper may seem like a solved design problem but Im still hoping there’s a better way. Maybe someone can finally explain the three seashells to me.

@Peter—

It’s 6:31. Honestly, if you’ve ever seen an analog clock, this isn’t really all that big a jump.

Clever, yes. Pretty and/or desirable? That’s up to the individual.

It looks a lot like a smoke alarm, but in concept it’s kinda cool.

Sure it looks nice now, but as soon as you put it up, people are going to steal the batteries out of it.

@Mark: That’s the problem. I would actually say it’s closer to 6:35, assuming the clock is oriented properly towards the camera. (Your guess would be better if the hour hand didn’t slowly move towards the next hour throughout the course of the hour it represents.)

Defintely a clever idea, but more art show-y than practical (and that is basically what this device was intended for, if you read the article).