Also, there's some confusion in the mix. "Analog clocks" is generally referring to clocks that have 1 through 12 in a circle. Most "analog" clocks these days are actually electronic, unless they are antiques. The exception being high end watches, primarily as a fashion statement. You can make a numeric clock that runs off gears and springs, people do for art projects on a regular basis.
What I'm trying and failing to understand is why folks think the 1 through 12 in a circle is a superior method of displaying the time rather than in a straight numeric fashion, if they both use the same internals. Which, they mostly do. Except for niche antique or fashion circumstances. Is that the argument?
Or is it that clockwork gear and spring clocks are superior? By what metric?
I don't think that anyone is arguing that at all.
What the original statement said is that kids these days are increasing unable to tell time based on looking at a traditional clock with hands -- an analog clock.
Is that a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing?
Who knows.
And, actually, looking through this thread, I'm not seeing much if any confusion about the terms digital vs analog. It looks to me as if everyone has used the terms properly, and understands how they're being used.
No one is arguing that most analog clocks these days are run with batteries using electronic drive mechanisms. All of the working analog clocks in my house (3 or 4 of them) have electronic movements.
The analog clocks in my house what have mechanical movements don't work because they need to be serviced.
And certainly no one at all is arguing that a wind up clock is somehow superior to an electronic one, be it digital OR analog display.