Talk:Swatch Internet Time

What was the reception?

I see several examples of usage and initial adoption, but what about general reception? For how long did those who adopted the system continue to use or support it? Has the general public ever used it, and how did they react to it? Has anyone ever criticized it? None of these questions are currently answered in this article. —173.199.215.5 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Good questions! The great thing about Wikipedia is that you can answer them. Wikipedia is crowd-sourced, which means that anyone can be a contributor. If the answers exist somewhere, you are encouraged to do research to find them and edit the article accordingly. --Nike (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just as the above IP addressed user did, I am going to make a suggestion but not make the additions my self. Of course, I am aware that I could do this, but as this article is of absolutely no interest to me and I know little about it beyond it's epic failure, I cannot provide a neutral representation merely a representation of it's failure which is too one sided in detail.

What I would like to suggest is a few changes; firstly it should be identified as a corporate gimmick, which is all it ever was. Secondly, it should be identified as a failed time system. Thirdly, the reasoning for this should be expanded upon, ie: it failed because it was just a corporate gimmick that was laden with trademark, corporate logos, and other such naming nonsense to do with branding and not a legitimate attempt at a universal time system.

The mere fact they called it 'Swatch Internet Time' is kind of a give-away. But that was the main reason no one would touch it with a ten foot pole, especially considering back then Swatch was pretty much the cheapest brand of watch you could get in the playground and not a reputable or even barely acceptable brand. Using the Swatch logo or name on your website would get an angry email from the company for misuse of a trademark, and yet they wanted you to use their 'time system' yet would threaten you for using it's name or the symbol they were using for it.

Gimmicks are often employed by big companies, it was even challenged whether the satellite was ever intended to operate or whether it was merely going to be used as a white elephant then salvaged for parts as it ultimately was. The general reception was abysmal, and I'm positive we can find a lot of supporting primary sources indicating all of this. But I suggest someone with a less negative viewpoint of this nonsense make the changes so it doesn't read like a beat down from the internet generation who were forced to roll our eyes while noobs told us about this cool new time system to use for modemmors!!1!!~! for the fiftieth time that day. :P

Also, Nike, I think I ran into you on Genie back in the day if you're the Nike I think you are! Man has it been a long time, and LOL LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT INTERNETS THING HEY! :D BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I did have the same name on GEnie, 20 years ago, although I don't know who you are or what I might have done that was memorable. As for Swatch, I think it's obvious from the article that it was a gimmick, and a failure if it was ever meant to be anything else. But saying so outright might be considered POV, unless you're quoting an outside source. --Nike (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"ie: it failed because it was just a corporate gimmick that was laden with trademark, corporate logos, and other such naming nonsense to do with branding and not a legitimate attempt at a universal time system" That's an opinion, and opinions aren't allowed in Wikipedia articles. Identifing it as failed also musn't be done; the article about Esperanto doesn't do it either... Com. BOY (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If a reliable source has written about how something failed, that can be quoted. The Esperanto article explains that the language "has not yet achieved the hopes of its founder to become a universal second language" and quotes some of the criticism it received and the theories as to why it failed. --McGeddon (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

More recent information

http://www.geekosystem.com/beat-swatch-internet-time/

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Leap seconds

Anyone know how leap seconds are represented and handled? 176.10.136.120 (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

They aren't. --Nike (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

So does that mean it will continue to lag more and more behind UTC? 176.10.136.120 (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Internet Time is not an independent time scale, just a conversion of UTC, i.e. it is always one hour ahead of UTC. --Nike (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

To be more specific, although Swatch states that it is based upon "the Biel Meantime Meridian", in actuality a "day in internet time begins at midnight BMT (@000 Swatch .Beats) (Central European Wintertime)", according to their own web page, so what they call BMT is really just CEWT, which is UTC+1. If you use the converter on their web site, you will see that one second before midnight (23:59:59 UTC+1, CEWT or BST) is 999.beats, and midnight is 0. This is true no matter which year you enter, regardless of how many leap seconds have been added since then. (Of course, during summer time, 0.beats is 01:00 in Switzerland, but midnight in Portugal and the British Isles.) --Nike (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Then BMT does take leap seconds into account, i.e., follows them whenever they occur, because CEWT follows them - if BMT didn't, it would cease to be exactly one hour ahead of UTC. SchnitteUK (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

As one .beat is 86.4 seconds long, we haven't had more than 86 leap seconds inserted and future leap seconds can not be predicted, using their calculator for this is pretty much useless. I could accept that 999 .beats is the last and 0 .beats is the first of each day, meaning then that the last .beat on a day with a leap second is one second longer. 176.10.136.120 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

"As one .beat is 86.4 seconds long, we haven't had more than 86 leap seconds inserted" - What? What has one got to do with the other? SchnitteUK (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Since 0.beats is 23:00 UTC, 23:59:60 would be 41.beats, so that is the beat that would be one second longer. 41.beats lasts from 23:59:02.4 to 00:00:28.8 UTC, regardless of leap seconds, so sometimes it's 86.4 seconds, sometimes 87.4. Since this is a consequence of UTC, not part of the Swatch specification, it is not relevant to this article. --Nike (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

RIP beats?

Swatch no longer seems to sell bear watches or promote beat time. Since it was a gimmick for their digital watches, and the current industry is split between mechanical and smart watches, beat watches appear to be gone. When was the last one sold? Time to change the article to past tense, I think. — @625 Nike (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the dot

The leading dot breaks normal orthography throughout the article. Perhaps the pronunciation should be clarified to avoid leaving the reader guessing, and perhaps assuming incorrectly that the term is pronouned analogous to "dotnet" (.Net Framework). -- J7n (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)