Skip to main content

World's Thinnest E-Ink Watch Meets $200K Goal in Less than 48 Hours

There's a certain allure that e-ink watches have for Kickstarter backers. Maybe it's something in the water.

Not too long ago, the Pebble e-ink smartwatch had a pitch so alluring that it managed to smash fundraising records, raising over $1 million in a little over 24 hours.

While Central Standard Timing might not be pushing the level of Pebble's success—after all, the Kickstarter honeymoon period that lasted for much of 2012 is fading and backers are a little more cautious in where they put their money—they've managed to raise over $200K in 48 hours.

While they're both e-ink watches, the CST-01 is a completely different monster. It emphasizes a sleek, portable design and doesn't offer the smart capabilities that come with the Pebble. It's all about functionality—it's a watch, pure and simple. And when it comes to the watch's thinness, CST is all serious business. The CST-01 is 0.80mm thick and composed of flexible, stainless steel.

An additional charging base comes with the watch, and doubles as a control center. To remove bulk from the watch, all time setting functionalities have been moved to the base.

Most impressively, the watch holds a charge for up to a month, and can be recharged to full in less than 10 minutes thanks to the Thinergy "Micro-Energy Cell" that the watch contains.

The CST's pitch is impressive. It's easy to see how it's managed to achieve its desired goal of $200K in so little time. The company already has prototypes ready for the watch. CST will be using Kickstarter money to finalize the last touches on the watch, making it more water and scratch resistant and bringing the project to the assembly line. Backing the project for $129 yields a watch, which, according to the Kickstarter page, is expected to ship September 2013.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

  • zealousraven
    Pebble uses an e-paper display.
    Reply
  • bustapr
    doesnt really seem interesting enough to me. itll be awkward to look at the time sideways and its quite expensive.
    Reply
  • JOSHSKORN
    I'll buy one in a couple years. Maybe the price then will be 25 bucks.
    Reply
  • Achoo22
    This generation desperately needs a Douglas Adams. He'd know just what to say about this watch. For me, it seems like a digital watch with no particularly special features that only lasts for a month without recharging is a gigantic step backwards.
    Reply
  • Gin Fushicho
    9444785 said:
    doesnt really seem interesting enough to me. itll be awkward to look at the time sideways and its quite expensive.

    You don't look at time sideways.... you wear it so that when you lift your arm in front of you, like you would raise your hand to go to the bathroom in Kindergarten, you can read the time.
    Reply
  • basketcase87
    Gin FushichoYou don't look at time sideways.... you wear it so that when you lift your arm in front of you, like you would raise your hand to go to the bathroom in Kindergarten, you can read the time.That's an incredibly uncomfortable way to look at a watch. Sure, that orientation works when you're actually raising your hand, but you can't read a watch when it's waving in the air over your head- you need it in front of your face. So you're left trying to get your arm in a vertical position with your wrist directly in front of your face. I don't know about everyone else, but when I try it out, I find the more traditional position far more comfortable.
    Reply
  • nix327
    Gin FushichoYou don't look at time sideways.... you wear it so that when you lift your arm in front of you, like you would raise your hand to go to the bathroom in Kindergarten, you can read the time.
    i agree with bustapr.. it'll be a bit difficult to get a proper view that way..its an awkward design for an expensive watch..
    Reply
  • nix327
    I agree with bustapr and basketcase87..it'll be a bit difficult to view time that way.. its an awkward design for an expensive watch..
    Reply
  • nix327
    sorry for the double post..
    Reply
  • yannigr
    And why not just buy a typical $5 watch that doesn't need recharge for years?
    Reply