Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Cellphones Hardware

No Love From Ars For Samsung's New Smart Watch 236

Posted by timothy from the too-little-too-early dept.
Despite the number of companies shipping or promising them, smart watches aren't the easiest sell, and Ars Technica's review of Samsung's entry illustrates why. Despite all the processing power inside, the watch is "sluggish" even for the kind of at-a-glance convenience features that are touted as the reason to have a phone tethered to an (even smarter) phone, and for the most part seems to weakly imitate features already found on that phone. There are a few features called out as cool, like a media control app, but for the most part reviewer Rob Amadeo finds little compelling in the Galaxy Gear.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Love From Ars For Samsung's New Smart Watch More

No Love From Ars For Samsung's New Smart Watch

Comments Filter:

  • Yo dawg (Score:5, Funny)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @04:27PM (#45053213)

    So I heard you like phones so we made a miniature phone for you phone so you can talk while you call.

  • What if Apple.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drewsup ( 990717 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @04:30PM (#45053241)

    Was bluffing all this time, how ironic would it be if just the rumor of Apple coming out with this caused multiple vendors to blow all that R&D and production on a product no one really wants.
    Hate Apple all you want, but there really is no substitute for being the king of the hill...

    • Re: What if Apple.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Excellent point. Apple hints, companies shoot their wad, consumers are "yawn", Apple learns from consumer reaction, releases killer product, samsung pays for Apple's consumer research, silly samsung!

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ozmanjusri ( 601766 )

        Excellent point. Apple hints, companies shoot their wad, consumers are "yawn",

        Except Apple aren't king of the hill any more, they have less than 20% of the smartphone market.

        And they've repeatedly missed the boat on what smartphone buyers really want. Copy-paste, big screens, folders, notifications, etc etc.

        Of late, Apple has done well at recognising a game-changing technology (1.8" HDDs, capacitative screens etc) early and releasing a niche-defining product based on it before everyone else. They can then ride the first mover advantage into the growth phase of the category.

        Tha

        • Re: What if Apple.. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 06, 2013 @08:12PM (#45054625)

          " Except Apple aren't king of the hill any more, they have less than 20% of the smartphone market. "

          Which is quite irrelevant. They never had more than 20% of the smartphone marketshare. Marketshare is largely irrelevant for Apple

          The are still king of the hill in profits and of mindshare. No other phone creates that frenzy. 9 million smartphones sold in 48 hours. No one else does this.

          " And they've repeatedly missed the boat on what smartphone buyers really want. "

          Not really. Otherwise they wouldn't have sold so many of them.

          "Copy-paste,"

          Covered. And better than all others.

          " big screens"

          The phablet market is tiny despite all the noise from tech forums. According to google the phablet market is just 10%. 90% of all Androids(!) are sold with screens of 4" or less.

          ", folders, notifications, etc etc. "

          They have all of it.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by narcc ( 412956 )

            They never had more than 20% of the smartphone marketshare. Marketshare is largely irrelevant for Apple
            ...
            Otherwise they wouldn't have sold so many of them.

            What?

          • 90% of all Androids(!) are sold with screens of 4" or less.

            Vs

            Android Buyers Have an Appetite for Huge Screens

            55 percent of Android smartphones sold in the United States in Q2 2013 were equipped with screens larger than 4.5 inches in diagonal.

            http://www.statista.com/topics/840/smartphones/chart/1396/android-phone-sales-by-screen-size/ [statista.com]

            Who should I believe?

            • Believe both.

              The first is an "everywhere, forever" statistic.
              The second is a "United States in Q2 2013" statistic.

              • The first is an "everywhere, forever" statistic.
                The second is a "United States in Q2 2013" statistic.

                Phablets are big in Asia-Pacific

                Large-screen phones prove hugely popular in India, China and other countries - creating challenge for Apple as it contemplates next iPhone release. "Phablets", the large-screened phones with screen sizes of between 5in and 7in diagonally, sold as well as tablets and laptops combined in the Asia-Pacific region during the second quarter, says research company IDC.

                http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/02/phablets-asia-pacific-tablets-laptops-growth [theguardian.com]

        • 20% of the market and probably 50% of the profits. They supposedly have a 40% share in the US. You don't need a majority of a market to still be the top dog. Margins matter. So does usage (which supposedly iOS users are by far dominant in the US (not sure elsewhere)) as that is what drives upselling data plans and purchases of apps in terms of profits. Android > Apple argument only works if you consider every manufacturer the same. Same argument of Mac vs PC ~10% of market but generally mid to high range

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Was bluffing all this time, how ironic would it be if just the rumor of Apple coming out with this caused multiple vendors to blow all that R&D and production on a product no one really wants.

      Except that smart watches have been in development for years before Apple made their rumour. The Pebble Smartwatch has been out for months.

      But nice revisionist history.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      The rumours of Apple developing one came after everyone else started working on theirs, not before. The first ones were on Kickstarter, such as the Pebble. Then Samsung demoed a flexible OLED display and people started to speculate that it would be used for a watch or some other kind of wearable device.

  • Is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @04:31PM (#45053249)

    Hands up all those who've been desperately waiting for a 'smart watch' to stick on their wrist?

    Yeah, thought not.

    • Re:Is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nerdfest ( 867930 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @04:39PM (#45053289)

      I was, and bought a Pebble. Damn close to everything I'd want, and definitely worth the price. Yeah, it would be nice to have a 'smart' watch but I don't think the battery and screen tech currently exists to do it right. The Pebble as a second, low-power, always-on screen with a few controls is pretty much the best available right now.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AuMatar ( 183847 )

      Hell, one of the advantages of even a dumb phone was that it had a clock on it. I threw out my watch the day I brought home my first cell phone. Why would I want a fragile piece of electronics on my wrist where it will just get bumped, damaged, and catch the hair on my wrists when I can keep something in my pocket? Watches are dead and good riddance.

      • Watches are dead and good riddance.

        Personally I feel naked without my watch. It's nothing fancy, just something my parents gifted to me from Kohl's 10 years ago for around $50 I believe, but it's held up well and functions the same today as it did 10 years ago. Pulling out my smartphone and fumbling to find the button just to check the time feels clumsy to my mind. I'm a very time-oriented person so I like having that information available as easily as a quick downward flick of my eyes. Well, that and I can wear it in the shower so I can

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mspohr ( 589790 )

        Lots of people have very expensive watches on their wrists and don't seem to worried about them getting damaged or catching hair.
        Carrying a phone in your pocket to tell the time is like carrying a pocket watch.
        Do you like pocket watches?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AuMatar ( 183847 )

          Over a wristwatch? Probably, except they tend to be more expensive, being a niche market. Over just using my cell? No- why carry a second thing that does a tiny subset of something else I already carry? Just another thing to lose.

          Also an advantage of the cell phone- synching time with the phone network. You never have to worry about it running out of synch, or being on the wrong timezone. Rarely a feature of a watch- even the better ones slowly go out of synch, unless you spend really huge numbers

        • Lots of people have very expensive watches on their wrists and don't seem to worried about them getting damaged or catching hair.

          Yes, those of us who have moved beyond watches have a term for them. It is "Idiot".

          Do you like pocket watches?

          Yes I do. It's called a "Smart Phone". And here in the 21st century the chain is optional!

          • Yes, those of us who have moved beyond watches have a term for them. It is "Idiot".

            You sure are judgemental about other people. I don't mind if other people prefer to have only a phone to check the time. Similarly I like a nice mechanical watch, it's an interesting blend of craft, technology and art.

    • If Apple releases a smartwatch it will probably be about as much a watch as the iPhone was "just" a phone...

      I've never worn a watch in my life but I can *imagine* a wearable computer that is cool and useful enough that I might consider it... Can't you?

      Pat

      • If Apple releases a smartwatch it will probably be about as much a watch as the iPhone was "just" a phone...

        I've never worn a watch in my life but I can *imagine* a wearable computer that is cool and useful enough that I might consider it... Can't you?

        Pat

        I agree - wearable computing will become important; a smartwatch or google glass are just the first exponents. Having near invisible computer assistance everywhere you are is an attractive step forward, and it will eventually happen. Reflecting Apple's product history, I think that they will only release a smartwatch if they can do it substantially better than what is out there in the market. I am curious about smartwatch tech, but every one so far failed to impress me.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Very, very good idea amongst the many cynical posts here. I like to use Memrise on my iphone to (painfully slowly) learn Mandarin, and I can see the appeal of having it on my watch instead.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mspohr ( 589790 )

      I think people want a smart watch for the same reason they want a wrist watch... they don't want to have to keep taking the phone out of their pocket to check for messages, etc.
      How many people do you know who still use a pocket watch?

    • I want something that connects me to the rest of the world with out requiring me to break out my phone.

      whether it's a watch, glasses, or whatever...

      Steve Jobs famously stated that there was a space between laptops and phones, and then he unveiled the iPad.

      is there a space between me and my phone? Hopefully something that doesn't require me to bring it out every now and then?

      Alternatively, we could just live lives and work jobs that don't require us to be connected 24x7, but... Until -that- sea change happen

      • The at-a-glance info is neat if it's always available (like e-ink is probably a good idea) but actually interacting with it is mostly less convenient than a phone, the tiny screen makes it awkward but worst of all you need both arms to operate it! Then there's the fact that you can't switch between hands and that you have to take it off if you want somebody to take a photo of you with it or let somebody else use it.

        I don't think the device you speak of can conveniently be a watch, maybe glasses but in that

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Guru80 ( 1579277 )
      The last time I thought a smart watch would be the coolest thing ever was in a 70's or early 80's Star Trek or James Bond movie.

  • Wearable computing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by larwe ( 858929 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @04:33PM (#45053255)
    ... is like home automation. It's always "just about to explode out of a niche market and go mainstream". Specifically to the wristwatch: this device has more or less ceased to fill its original segment of "functional timekeeping, optionally alarm-playing device that's always with you because it's on your wrist" - that functionality is filled by the cellphone, which is also always with you and has a lot more functionality. Watches these days are considered jewelry, not tools - you wear them occasionally to go with nice clothes to achieve a specific aesthetic effect. (This line of thinking is not original to me, by the way, I first heard it when reading some strategic marketing training materials, and have since heard the same story - with credible market research justifications, several times. It seems to pass the sniff test, especially once I walk down the street and look at a few hundred wrists to see what's on them). Given this, the market segment that actually finds the "80s calculator watch" aesthetic to be appealing is pretty limited, and I say that as someone who owned and loved my calculator watches, FM radio watch, "space invaders game" watch, and B&W TV watch in the 1980s. It certainly isn't close to the size of the cellphone market, by orders of magnitude. This whole activity of creating smartwatches is simply a saturated market flailing around to create the Next Big Thing. Throw some hardware out there, see if someone (probably a startup) comes up with a use case that sets the world on fire, acquire startup, profit. In the meantime, hype the widget and milk it for PR exposure time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by xtal ( 49134 )

      I'd be interested in a high end watch with silent alert and biometric functions that communicated with my smartphone.

      That'd be about it.

    • I think a smart watch is anti-fashion to high priced jewelry watch. I think an ap that would be commonly run on them would be a display that simulates the red-led watches of old because they were also eventually became anti-fashion.
      • My grammar, lol, it is pretty bad here. I edited my sentences then didn't check to see if they actually formed something known as English.

    • Re:Wearable computing... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @05:26PM (#45053539) Homepage Journal

      Specifically to the wristwatch: this device has more or less ceased to fill its original segment of "functional timekeeping, optionally alarm-playing device that's always with you because it's on your wrist"

      Believe it or not, I still wear a digital watch as well as have a smartphone. It's just quicker to glance at the time on it (which I do quite regularly) than take a few seconds taking out my smartphone from a pocket that also has keys in it.

      I quite like the simplicity of the watch, though; a smartwatch kind of defeats the point.

      • Believe it or not, I still wear a digital watch as well as have a smartphone. It's just quicker to glance at the time on it (which I do quite regularly) than take a few seconds taking out my smartphone from a pocket that also has keys in it.

        I believe it, and I agree. I went for about 6 months a decade or so ago without a watch, and used my cellphone for telling time... but then for a time I was doing international traveling, and I needed a watch again. I've kept using them again ever since. They're useful.

        On the other hand, I teach college students. Wristwatches started to disappear from their wrists about a decade ago, and by 5 years ago I could walk around a large lecture hall and only see one or two. For people younger than about 30-

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by bosef1 ( 208943 )

      As I seem to recall from back when the History Channel showed history, the original function of the "wrist watch" was jewelry, especially for ladies. Men wore pocket watches, and wrist watches were women's bracelets with a built-in timepiece. From what I remember, wrist watches weren't really appropriate fashion items for men until World War 1, when mass troop coordination required everyone to have an easily accessible timepiece, and wrist-watches fit the bill. So having the wrist watch return the status

      • As I seem to recall from back when the History Channel showed history, the original function of the "wrist watch" was jewelry, especially for ladies. Men wore pocket watches, and wrist watches were women's bracelets with a built-in timepiece. From what I remember, wrist watches weren't really appropriate fashion items for men until World War 1, when mass troop coordination required everyone to have an easily accessible timepiece, and wrist-watches fit the bill. So having the wrist watch return the status of jewelry isn't too unprecedented.

        I find I prefer to wear a pocket watch at the office. I'm not a good typist, and wearing a wrist-watch bothers me when I use a keyboard. The pocket watch lets me have a convenient timepiece that stays in my pants. Plus you can get some really fancy pocket watches.

        Is that a Galaxy Note 3 pocket watch in your pants, or are you just really excited to see me?

    • Re:Wearable computing... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @06:23PM (#45053833) Homepage Journal

      I disagree. It's lot quicker and easier to glance at my watch than it is to dig my smartphone out of my pocket and wake up the screen. For that matter living in New England, when it's winter I've got to figure out which pocket the phone's in.

      What having a phone with you means is that it's no longer *compulsory* to have a watch for telling time. A watch is still a heck of a lot more convenient than a phone. I think that a phone companion watch that did caller id and notified me of incoming messages and upcoming appointments would be awesome, provided that it could go a couple days between charges. The Samsung device, I think, is a bit over an overreach; it tries to do too much and does some of it not so well.

      I do agree that people aren't wearing watches as much as they used to. My daughter carries a pocket watch. One day at school she popped it open to check the time, and a girl asked, "What's that?"

      "A pocket watch," daughter answers.

      "What does it do?" the girl asks.

    • Re:Wearable computing... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @06:29PM (#45053871) Journal
      Also, it's arguable that Samsung's stab at 'Smart Watch' utterly bungles the separation of labor in ways that make the result far less compelling than it could be(which, for the reasons you describe, is still somewhat limited).

      We have 'wearable computing', even your $100 'eh, some kind of android phone' that you get with prepaid plans is quite wearable, and pretty punchy computationally. Until we have the nigh-miraculuous/power density enough to blow your hand off battery tech to get the whole phone onto your wrist, that's where the compute power is going to have to live(there are a few novelty 'dumbphone-on-wrist' watches you can get, and they do work; but the only reason they get reasonable-ish battery life is because they are nth-generation minimalist GSM implementations cut to the bone).

      Instead of recognizing this, and building just enough intelligence to save bandwidth by crunching and formatting messages (rather than using a less power efficient, relatively high speed, RF link to drive a 'dumb' framebuffer style screen or a relatively dumb RFB/VNC style screen), which would actually be doable in a smaller watch, or one with better battery life, or both, they dumped an entire cellphone in the thing, just one without the 'phone' part, or enough power to make Android pleasant, or enough battery to get good runtimes... Brilliant.

      Ironically, Microsoft is probably best positioned (technologically, based on past behavior I'll give them a 90+ percent chance of either not doing it or fucking it up really badly) to do the 'smart watch'+ cellphone combo properly. They've been thinking about peripheral screens connected to more qualified systems since at least 'Windows Sideshow' debuted with Vista back in the day (uptake, approximately zero...) and they also have, for actual application support on the resource constrained peripheral devices, all the work they've done on .NET. .NET Micro runs on next to no resources (no 8-bit stuff; but the memory footprint is under 512k and the target architecture is ARM microcontrollers). .NET Compact is more capable; and of intermediate size, and then full .NET. All use the CLR, and run CIL bytecode applications, all are either quite similar to one another or subsets of one another, and so on.

      Again, MS being MS, they'll fuck this one up in some baffling fashion; but that's a very strong (relative to other companies' portfolios) set of options for building 'smart watch' type devices. Want a really watch-like smartwatch, possibly with adequate battery life? A .NET Micro device will run on just about the feeblest 32-bit ARM microcontrollers you can buy, and would support 'faces' and notification-processing/display engines on the CLR, with WCF-based communication with the handset. Want something a bit punchier? Compact is that, if you can satisfy its hardware requirements.

      Outside of that, you have Samsung's rather pitiful 'take an entire Android phone and gimp it until it fits on your wrist' approach, or Pebble's 'do something totally custom; but more reasonable on resources, and provide a decently sane mechanism for developers to use when approaching your totally custom thing'.

    • Specifically to the wristwatch: this device has more or less ceased to fill its original segment of "functional timekeeping, optionally alarm-playing device that's always with you because it's on your wrist" - that functionality is filled by the cellphone, which is also always with you and has a lot more functionality.

      No, it hasn't and no, it isn't.
      Rotating your arm slightly is still much easier than pulling something out of your pants, unlocking/waking it and putting it back in again. I never do the latter to check the time. Because I have a fucking watch.

      In addition to a wrist being a much more accessible location, the idea of something wearable instead of something you carry is that you don't have to worry about losing it or where to put it. Tell me: do you go swimming with your cell phone? Even if it was water proof,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mspohr ( 589790 )

        Here's one which is waterproof and a complete Android phone. You can go swimming with it.
        http://omate.com/ [omate.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by larwe ( 858929 )
        You can make this argument all day long, and while it seems to make sense, it doesn't address the reality that the percentage of people who buy and wear wristwatches is falling (here's a fun article http://www.bbb.org/blog/2012/05/has-your-cell-phone-killed-your-watch/ [bbb.org] ). I'll buy the argument that wearable computing devices simply have never been implemented well, but until you show me the killer implementation of the killer app, I'll continue to assert that the idea of pervasive wearables is a marketing w

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Wearable personal computing devices make complete sense. The current implementations are just not very good.

        Smartwatches suffer from the fact they were pretty much invented needs.

        The need for a smartwatch came from the fact that smartphones have gotten ever bigger and bigger (or as Gizmodo put it, "dick-a-geddon" came a month early - when screen sizes exceeded average penis size), they became clumsier and clumsier to use.

        Sure, a big screen is nice for videos and games - that's why people love consoles attac

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mspohr ( 589790 )

      The wrist watch was created because it was a pain to keep taking your pocket watch out to check the time.
      We've regressed... now we have to take our phones out of our pockets to check the time.
      Hence, the smart watch.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by larwe ( 858929 )
        Yes, we've regressed to an era where we have to pull something out of our pockets to check the time. The thing is, the *simple* and *cost effective* answer to that is a $1 digital wristwatch. Wrist mounted timepieces just aren't as popular as they once were. The $300 smartwatch (which will cease to function as soon as you upgrade to a different brand of phone) is a ludicrous proposed solution to the problem "I don't want to have to reach into my pocket to check the time".

  • Samsung Proprietary (Score:3)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @04:37PM (#45053273)

    The first major problem with the Samsung is that it is proprietary- working only with Samsung phones. This is a huge no-no for lots of us. In addition to that, it has very low functionality for something so expensive.

    The Omate, on the other hand, is far, FAR more interesting. Being not only compatible with all phones, but also even being a real phone, itself if you want. And it is a full Android device with Play access and lots of local CPU/RAM/Storage with bluetooth, GPS, gyro, vibe, and WiFi. And also a better camera, better display, and much better face (a sapphire crystal) and it just has my wallet itching...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omate_TrueSmart [wikipedia.org]

    • I don't think most consumers care about "proprietary" at all. But they do care about big and clunky, they do care about a sluggish interface, and they really don't want to charge their watch every night.

      Now, speaking only for myself... if it has to be tethered to my phone in order to function, that's a non-starter all by itself. It's not particularly onerous to pull my phone out of my pocket - there's not a whole lot more to that motion than to looking at something on my wrist.

      • I care far more about the proprietary nature of the Galaxy Gear than how it looks, or whether it's a stand-alone phone, and I would guess a decent percentage of others to as well. If I have an HTC or LG phone and was interested in this I'd be out of luck. It's a pretty arrogant or stupid move on Samsung's part.

    • Re:Samsung Proprietary (Score:5, Informative)

      by guises ( 2423402 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @05:26PM (#45053537)
      The Galaxy Gear actually exists. You can criticize it, fine, but you can't come along with a reference to a Kickstarter project and say, "I wish the Galaxy Gear was more like this one - imaginary."

      • That is a fair assessment with Kickstarter stuff, although the Omate isn't really imaginary...

        They are far past concept, past design, past prototyping, past beta, have apps already up, and are in pre-production and with an over one MILLION dollar project. Of course, something might happen, and it could be a total crapwad when it comes out. But there are lots of videos and photos and information on their sites to show it is not imaginary and what you can see simply blows the doors off everything out there.

    • Hey, just wanted to say thanks for linking to the Omate. I've actually never heard of it before, and it seems really intriguing (I've spent the past hour reading the wiki and browsing the forums). I think I'll hold off for a month to see if it does manage to become Google Play certified, but it's definitely on my radar now.

      The one common complaint I see about it is the screen resolution only being 240x240 versus the 320x320 of the Galaxy Gear. Admittedly most Android apps aren't scalable down to that

  • Missing the point, folks. It's not for you. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) * on Sunday October 06, 2013 @04:38PM (#45053283)

    Folks, like many expensive watches, this is a fashion item, not a solution to any particular problem (other than how to fleas money from rich yups). Like a Rolex. It's jewelry.

    • That piece of garbage is jewelry? *puke*

      You're just taking a piss on this aren't you?

    • I'd say the exact opposite. It's not particularly nice looking.

      I'm interested in a device with this form factor, mainly for exercise purposes. But sadly Samsung hasn't included any of the popular fitness apps with the watch, opting to write their own crappy imitation that no one will use. :(

    • Folks, like many expensive watches, this is a fashion item...

      You clearly haven't seen the watch if you think it's a fashion item. It would have been ugly had it come out in the mid-90's. In 2013, it's downright embarrassing. There's nothing, what-so-ever fashionable about the Samsung Gear. And, for the love of gawd, please don't compare it to a Rolex which actually is a fashionable piece of jewelry.

  • they didn't even mention the single most important part of this device: battery life.

    gizmag at least tells you (~20 hours): http://www.gizmag.com/samsung-galaxy-gear-review/29288/ [gizmag.com]

    oh yeah, Ars also floods my "back" buffer. wtf?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zumbs ( 1241138 )
      Thanks for posting that link. I looked all over TFA to get an estimated battery time, and, strangely, found nothing. I would find that a pretty important piece of information when it comes to wearable computing.

      • Could it be that other reviewers couldn't even get it to last that long? Other reviews say 5 hours. Another one claimed that during the launch, the camera app wouldn't even start at the end of the launch presentation because the battery was dead.

    • Uh, what about the reviewer who couldn't get the camera app to start, at the end of the launch party, because the battery was down?

      20 hours seems a bit far fetched. Wonder what other reviews say.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 0123456 ( 636235 )

        Presumably, that's 20 hours if you don't actually use it to do anything.

        I'd looked for battery life in the article too, since it was inevitably going to be something retarded that would require you to recharge the damn thing every day. Having to recharge a phone every couple of weeks is annoying enough.

  • 1 - non of you cheap bastards will pay $600 for a real smartwatch.
    2 - because of this they make them as cheap as possible with a decent profit margin.
    3 - battery technology is not there yet, so get used to charging your watch, people dont want to charge their watch nightly.
    4 - app writers all refuse to follow a standard data or alert API so it's impossible to make the watch do what people want.
    5 - ....
    6 - Profit.

  • A smart watch that connects to your smart phone? What a great idea.

    How strange that no one ever thought of it before [amazon.com].

  • I'm still wondering what I'd want to go back to carrying a watch for. Alarms and notifications seems kind of not enough for the trouble, and I really can't imagine what else a piddly screen can be used for. As a headset it'll seem weird (the hand ! the hand ! talk to the hand !) and they'd need beam-forming for my conversations to be private... but maybe that will get accepted ? I keep hoping someone will come up with something compelling, but so far...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zumbs ( 1241138 )
      Give it a few years, then the foldable screens will arrive, giving you the convenience of a wrist watch along with the smartphone sized screen.

  • iWatch (Score:3)

    by thestudio_bob ( 894258 ) on Sunday October 06, 2013 @05:29PM (#45053563)

    Wouldn't it be funny, if iWatch was for the name for the rumored TV product that Apple is supposedly working on.

    Like in "Watching TV", not "I wear a watch".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AuMatar ( 183847 )

      TV product? You mean the already existing (and nobody much buying) AppleTV?

      • Have you been living under a rock? You seriously haven't heard any of the gazillion rumors about Apple's rumored secret TV project they've been working on. And no, not the (Even Apple calls it a hobby) AppleTV.

      • You're gonna have to define "nobody much." Five million sold in 2012 [engadget.com] seems like quite a few, especially when compared to the number of set top boxes everyone [engadget.com] else [gigaom.com] has announced selling. Would be interesting to see Chromecast number, though. If Google would release them, of course.

  • "smart watches aren't the easiest sell, and Ars Technica's review of Samsung's entry illustrates why." Ars' review has nothing to do with whether or not smart watches are a hard sell; it is all about the fact that THIS PARTICULAR smart watch is a piece of garbage. You may disagree with Ars' conclusion, but don't try to pretend that it is something it is not --- it is a very pointed criticism of the Galaxy Gear and of NOTHING else.

  • Really?! (Score:3)

    by yoshi_mon ( 172895 ) on Monday October 07, 2013 @01:42AM (#45056319)

    Its not Intel and not Microsoft? And Ars's does not like it?!

    Stop the presses!

Slashdot Top Deals

Children begin by loving their parents. After a time they judge them. Rarely, if ever, do they forgive them. - Oscar Wilde

Close