[Alessandro G.]

(02-08-2016, 07:22 PM)PippiMD Wrote:  As far as I am concerned, almost everything in the update is a plus. The downsizing of the core battery is balanced by a sleeker design - I would rather have a little more bulk than the trimmer watch, but can easily live with this. The move to a differently sized module for the battery is one that leave me scratching my head, though. I know it has increased capacity, but one of the prime selling points of this product is its modularity - and interchangeability of any and all modules - and this change goes against that prime concept. Does anyone like this particular change? None of the comments I have read consider this to be a positive move.

According to the feedback from the community, no one really liked the changes to the battery module. But I think that calling them "changes" would be inaccurate. Some thinks that there was a previous version of the battery module, and this is the new one. The battery module was still under development during the KS campaign, which is why they never stated its full capacity but mentioned it to have "around 20% the capacity of the Core" (the Core at the time had a 400mAh battery). Then, when they started finalizing its design, they realized that they couldn't make a standard-sized module with that kind of capacity, so they had to increase the size of the module, but managed to go up to 100mAh doing so. They stated on KS that at the current state of development of battery technology, that is the best they could do.

[Yousif]

(02-09-2016, 01:28 PM)Alessandro G. Wrote:  

(02-08-2016, 07:22 PM)PippiMD Wrote:  As far as I am concerned, almost everything in the update is a plus. The downsizing of the core battery is balanced by a sleeker design - I would rather have a little more bulk than the trimmer watch, but can easily live with this. The move to a differently sized module for the battery is one that leave me scratching my head, though. I know it has increased capacity, but one of the prime selling points of this product is its modularity - and interchangeability of any and all modules - and this change goes against that prime concept. Does anyone like this particular change? None of the comments I have read consider this to be a positive move.

According to the feedback from the community, no one really liked the changes to the battery module. But I think that calling them "changes" would be inaccurate. Some thinks that there was a previous version of the battery module, and this is the new one. The battery module was still under development during the KS campaign, which is why they never stated its full capacity but mentioned it to have "around 20% the capacity of the Core" (the Core at the time had a 400mAh battery). Then, when they started finalizing its design, they realized that they couldn't make a standard-sized module with that kind of capacity, so they had to increase the size of the module, but managed to go up to 100mAh doing so. They stated on KS that at the current state of development of battery technology, that is the best they could do.

I never actually realised that, but it would still be nice to have a smaller one. Two questions though, is the battery module on the bottom just because it's longer? How much longer than a normal module is it?

[Alessandro G.]

(02-09-2016, 04:01 PM)Yousif Wrote:  I never actually realised that, but it would still be nice to have a smaller one. Two questions though, is the battery module on the bottom just because it's longer? How much longer than a normal module is it?

I've asked about that on KS twice but I got ignored. Either they don't know yet or they prefer not to disclose that info.

[PippiMD]

@Allessandro - I understand what you are saying - when we backed the project, everything was in the prototype stage. I do think, though, from a business standpoint it is much better to underpromise and overdeliver than the other way around, and everything put out by the developers prior to the recent update indicated several things that will not be possible with the current design - multiple battery modules at once, placement anywhere on the "band" in particular. More fundamental than that, though, is that it goes against the basic philosophy of the modular smartwatch.

[Alessandro G.]

(02-09-2016, 05:07 PM)PippiMD Wrote:  @Allessandro - I understand what you are saying - when we backed the project, everything was in the prototype stage. I do think, though, from a business standpoint it is much better to underpromise and overdeliver than the other way around, and everything put out by the developers prior to the recent update indicated several things that will not be possible with the current design - multiple battery modules at once, placement anywhere on the "band" in particular. More fundamental than that, though, is that it goes against the basic philosophy of the modular smartwatch.

I cannot take a position on this because I would have preferred a standard sized battery, but I don't mind the current design either, as I'm confident about a smaller version being available sooner or later. Still, I do believe that this limitation to the number of battery modules wearable at the same time represents the loss of a major (and I mean really major) selling point of BLOCKS itself. I hope time and sales will prove me wrong.

[a_guy]

(02-09-2016, 06:03 PM)Alessandro G. Wrote:  I do believe that this limitation to the number of battery modules wearable at the same time represents the loss of a major (and I mean really major) selling point of BLOCKS itself. I hope time and sales will prove me wrong.

You're right, BLOCKS is about modularity, interchangeability and freedom, restraining user choice by having a module bigger than the others and fixed to a certain position is a real downside to this philosophy.

[Yousif]

I don't know if it's that the batteries wouldn't work together or if the batteries wouldn't be ergonomic and comfortable.

[Peter]

My opinion about the update:

In general I like the update. It isn't an update which got me like "Omg this is so awesome, I can't wait for more!!!!!!", but it isn't a update like this either: "This is what you call an update? Comon this is not what I ordered, I hate it!!".
It's more like this for me: "Ahh there are quite a few things which disappoint me, but there is great stuff in it too which compensates it".

Well it might not be very clear what I explained above, but you might be able to understand it.

I like the idea of moving to stainless steel. It gives the watch a more premium design. The hardware upgrade is awesome too.
Something I don't like is the smaller battery, I understand it's needed for a smaller core which is requested by a lot of people and it gets compensated by the power efficient software. Still I don't really care about the size of the watch.
Then comes the limit of one battery module. This isn't the part that I dislike most, that honestly is because it's bigger then the other modules, it's a small detail, but I prefer having it a bit smaller so it matches with the other modules.
Still I think when it comes to adding the battery module, the bigger size won't be that big of a deal.

I do sound quite negative about the update, but in general I'm satisfied. The delayed shipping is something I don't really mind at all. I was mentally prepared for that to happen and it's for the better. Knowing that they have more time for things like IP68 testing and thinking what to use for the premium design where people pledged extra for.

[Bernie]

I think that everyone has to understand that this is a new project that is continually evolving, hopefully for the better!
I read a comment from one member saying that you promised it in May and now the battery in core and the modules have changed.
I do wish that people could see that this is a Kickstarter project and the original concept is still the same but we will receive may not turn out the same as at the beginning of the project.
I think the Blocks team have partnered with some great tech companies, and I for one fully support the team and encourage them to be as innovative as possible, it will be great to see a progressive new company in the smartwatch field.
I also recommend to members that if they have any great ideas for new modules please put them forward, you never know you may see your idea come to fruition.

[Peter]

(02-10-2016, 07:23 PM)Bernie Wrote:  I think that everyone has to understand that this is a new project that is continually evolving, hopefully for the better!
I read a comment from one member saying that you promised it in May and now the battery in core and the modules have changed.
I do wish that people could see that this is a Kickstarter project and the original concept is still the same but we will receive may not turn out the same as at the beginning of the project.
I think the Blocks team have partnered with some great tech companies, and I for one fully support the team and encourage them to be as innovative as possible, it will be great to see a progressive new company in the smartwatch field.
I also recommend to members that if they have any great ideas for new modules please put them forward, you never know you may see your idea come to fruition.

That is a fact for sure and Blocks is doing a very good job. They show the progress they are making. That's why the general public doesn't make a big deal out of it.

You always keep people that complain about every small change that isn't in their favor. They complain in the comments, but the majority of supporters are in the opinion that Blocks is doing a good job and they defend Blocks against these complainers.
Because of that majority who likes it, Blocks keeps having the positive vibe in the comments