Clearly designed by somebody who does not have the concept of "On time" on his hard drive.

Hmmm, nice, but I would rather spend the extra and buy a Meistersinger one-hander.

"it's still quick and simple way to tell what time it is within 2.5-minutes either way with nothing but a solitary glance" Absolute rubbish! I can't tell what time the watch is showing without counting round the marks. With a conventional analogue watch a single glance is all that is required as the two hands produce recognisable patterns, and there are far fewer markings on the face. This is the reason why the conventional analogue watch is still produced in such huge numbers even since the availability of cheap digital watches that DO tell you the exact time at a single glance.

So similar to the Botta Design "UNO 24" I've had for years!
http://www.botta-design.de/en/einzeigeruhr-uno-24.html

Old clocks didn't have a second or minute hand - look at old church towers. this isn't a new idea (as much of what appears on Gizmag!)

Why is it called a "hand" when it is more like an arm?
The addition of minutes and seconds pointers to clocks was considered a great advance in technology.
This is a backward step!

So I guess a watch with one hand would cost over a thousand dollars? And no hands -- priceless....

i agree it takes longer to tell an exact time with this thing, plus it still isn;t really exact
so it is a good way to waste time, trying to tell time
meta!
wle

Far better is the Chromachron "color time" watch which has a pie slice shaped opening 1 hour wide moving over a field of 12 colors with a spiral covering the minuets. It is also available as an $4.95 app on the iPhone along with a world clock showing the time in color world wide and even a list of how many days have passed since your birth.

This qualifies for the dumbest new product of the year, and decade.
What is the point of such a watch except for being a decoration on your wrist.