Less than 24 hours usage before battery fails.
I'll be first in the queue!
Are we going backwards in a way?
Samsung is not a great innovator, yet it’s certainly one of the world’s greatest imitators. Although it follows other companies into booming markets with me-too products, it remembers to add a little more sparkle to its offerings so that it not merely to catches up with its rivals, it eventually pushes past them. That’s what …
I'll be first in the queue!
Are we going backwards in a way?
I'd have put the minimum usable number at between a week and a month. That and they need an always on display technology. They may not be as pretty as OLED, but they can be read in bright light and don't eat battery power int the same way.
because I think this new hype about smarwatches is just that - hype and - but of course, it's all about trying to "capture" - new generations of "wallets" (and make them lighter ;)
Nope, I really do not see the point of these devices while they have to be tethered.
It's not so much about age - it's experience. The whole smartwatch thing comes around every few years or so, and a few maniacs get excited, but then we all realise that our phones have a clock on them and we've all gotten very used to slipping it out and having a quick glance.
None of these 'smart' watches actually do anything particularly smart, and where it comes to functionality they seem to promise little beyond the last wave of them we saw years ago...except for a few acronyms like OLED, etc What they will do it empty your wallet for a thing that won't even last pass staying out overnight at a friend's house, or partying, whatever.
I had a Timex Datalink. I could sync it with my PC running MS-DOS by holding it in front of the screen. You had to have a CRT though, not a TFT screen.
"because I think this new hype about smarwatches is just that - hype and....." Yeah, but I'm much more likely to use a smartwatchphone than be a Glasshole, especially if I'm doing something like jogging or cycling when I don't want my phone falling out of my pocket and breaking. Pair it with a (discrete) Bluetooth headset and enjoy not looking a total nerd.
Of course, one of the smaller Andorid phones, something the size of the old HTC Wildfire S, mounted in landscape mode on a wrist strap is even better and a whole lot cheaper, and has a far better screen.
I can not remember if I ever did get a calculator watch, but I had a very simple "organizer" one that I could store phone numbers on (never used a phone back then, so pointless) and it was made by Casio.
Was one of these http://thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mlwSOhLASb8OHLwDKl2OX1Q.jpg
Had a radio watch at some point that sadly fell apart.
Never went back to such gadgets again after that. And a rotary watch or two is all I've got. :)
Tethered = sadness and fail. Remember the early Nokia 700 web tablet thingy? Had to be thethered for connectivity outside wifi, which was a deliberate design choice, and as soon as the iphone came out it shriveled and died. Or the hilarity with Blackberry's tablet mail that had to be tethered to the phone at first?
Tethering might increase functionality. It definitely increases hassle and things to fail.
Pah! That makes you a mere whippersnapper.
Anyone remember the Sinclair Black Watch? Two versions; one pre-assembled and the other was one that you had to solder yourself.
All would have worked well but for the essential 1970s fashion items; when everyone wore Bri-Nylon shrts and the static fried the watches.
That is exactly its only point - the fact that they can be tethered so you don't need to bother with the bigger phone, tablet or whatever. Otherwise it is just gimmicky!
I have two main criteria for a watch.
1) Rugged. Metal body and strap (real solid metal, not plastic with silver paint or plastic with a thin metal coating) and a toughened glass screen. Watches don't last long on my wrist. A plastic face has a life span of less than a week before it gets a nasty scratch across the display. My current one meets the specs I mention and has lasted 10 years and only slightly showing wear and tare. No point in me strapping my new shiney to my wrist and accidentally scuffing it on a wall after a drunken stagger to my front door.
2) Water resistant. Not talking deep sea diving. I'm talking about not worrying about the rain hitting it (we are in the UK after all) or sticking your hands in a bucket of water with the thing still on. Something else that has kept my watch going for 10 years. I worry about getting my phone out to check text messages or take a photo when its even light drizzle. That does preclude any watch that needs a cover opened to stick in a charging cable daily. A few charging pads on the back or inductive charging is what you need.
Once the two above are satisfied, I'll consider one, as it will have a chance of lasting long enough to become obsolete. It was tough to find my current watch (which also stores phone numbers if you are looking for the geek angle).
I have more than two criteria for a watch.
The first is that it's face is clear, easy to read and no bigger than an inch in height or width (or diameter if round)
The second is that the whole thing is no more 3.5mm thick.
The third that the battery last at least a year.
Wireless charging maybe?
I could live with a relatively poor battery life if I could just place it a pad at night for charging
A little digging found one of the most important specs missing from this report... the size of it.
Another site has the dimensions as 37mm wide, 57mm tall and 11mm thick.
Comparing that the watch currently stuck on my arm, it's about the same width, twice as tall and roughly the same thickness. I don't like how thick my current watch is, but, can't find one I like to replace it.
I have slim wrists, and something that big would look ridiculous on there.
The G-Shock is rugged and waterproof, but it sounds like you want a watch with a sapphire crystal - which not likely to be featured on a smartwatch which might only be used for a couple of years before being superseded by a newer model. The faces on G-Shocks do tend to be deeply recessed though, so not as prone to scratches as other non-sapphire watches.
That it will fit on my frigging wrist.
Even extra long straps aren't long enough for my wrists. Yeah, my hands are the size of a Yeti's as well
and accidentally scuffing it on a wall after a drunken stagger to my front door
Geting up to go to catch the 07.45 to work is a right pain, isn't it?
And here's me on the other end. My wrists are very small, and I always have to make extra holes in the damn things to fit them on as well.
Maybe they will give us a nice range, rather than one size fits all.
I've tried the plastic bodied watches before (including the ones that pretend to look like metal but are just metal coated plastic). They scuff up too easily and tend to break where the strap meets the body (where the pins holding the strap go into the body).
Sitting in a bedside cradle sounds like a good idea for the smart watches. As long as the cradle is portable (doesn't take much room in your overnight bag) and doesn't have a bright charging light. Too many things with a bright LED in the bedroom already.
I knew it was ahead of its time!
Poor battery life and only works with two Samsung phones - I'll be sticking with my Pebble.
But seeing Apple get a good kicking will be quite satisfying.
I reckon Apple are quite smug as beating that fugly Samsung is not going to be hard.
I expect Apple with come up another overpriced closed ecosystem overpriced kitchen appliance.
How exactly is this giving Apple a kicking? It only paves the way for them to enter a market that actually exists.
Well at least it's stopped Apple claiming they invented it.
"..Well at least it's stopped Apple claiming they invented it."
I wouldn't so sure, funny things can happen in the Unite States of Amnesia.
"The Gear has an 800MHz CPU, 512MB of RAM and 4GB of flash storage"
If that's not far higher spec than your first computer then YOU ARE TOO YOUNG.
(that said, it's not far off the spec of my first IBM compatible PC, a PIII from Packard Bell)
Indeed. My first computer* had a 1MHz CPU, 4KB RAM and a Tarbell cassette interface. That was after I upgraded it.
I still find it amusing that my £29 Nook has 800MHz CPU with 256MB RAM, and 16GB of storage. I mean, the idea that the future would have watches and phones that were actually mobile computers with high spec wouldn't have surprised me, especially at hundreds of pounds, indeed, that was what we were expecting the future to be. But 256MB RAM in something that's dedicated at one function, to read books?
It's like saying in 2030, a £20 toaster will have 256GB of RAM and an 80-core processor.
Acorn A305 - 8MHz ARM2, 512KB RAM, and 720KB discs (though 40MB Hard drive was an option) - And you can wear it on your wrist, instead of it taking serious desk space. How far we've come eh?
But, I can't see this flying without at least a week's usage between charges. That must surely be the usable minimum?!?
"It's like saying in 2030, a £20 toaster will have 256GB of RAM and an 80-core processor."
Yeah, but I bet the toast is perfect everytime... :P
Your toaster will need all that to collate all the data everything else in your home emits so that it can be sent to the NSA/GCHQ/FIS
burning up the wires....
But the Acorns had a big advantage: they had SCSI-interfaces (well, you could buy).
I put insane amounts of money in SCSI accessories for my A5000 and RISC PC 600.
A processor that powerful would double up as the heating element - or to put it another way - the bread is the heatsink!
The 80 core processor can make your toast within 10 seconds. No need for a dedicated heating element.
Whatever happened to looking out of the window?
I used to say that about phone apps. I don't anymore because looking out of the window doesn't tell me what to expect when I land in $DESTINATION.
When I was doing O level French I was reminded that if the examiner asked 'Quel temps fait-il?' not to look at my watch thinking they'd asked about the time.
Now, you'd have to explain to them (in French, of course) that you weren't actually checking the time, but looking at the watch weather app!
But that's a considered contemplation of the weather report and not something you have a quick look at.
info on your next appointment, direction to the nearest Starbucks (an example!), how long to the next train - these are quick look things.
If only Casio would release an SDK for their Bluetooth G-Shock.
I'd even pay (reasonable) money for such a thing.
You'd still be limited to iDevices, newer Samsung Galaxy phones and tablets, and some MS Surface and Nokia gizmos - most Android devices lack Bluetooth LE hardware.
Good, then I won't have to write Java.
As a bit of a Sammy fanboy I was waiting for this, crossing my fingers that they wouldn't do a 'Sony' and lock it to their phones. Doh - Guess I'll be waiting for Google's offering. I doubt a 'Nexus' watch will only work with Nexus devices; that would be shooting themselves in the foot. Like Samsung has just done.
The new Sony works with any Android 4.0+ device.
Samsung isn't really shooting themselves in the foot - they are just ahead of the Android pack and waiting for them to catch up. They have put Bletooth LE hardware in their kit before support for the standard was rolled out in the last major Android update.
Oh, Google bought a smartwatch start-up a few years ago, but the deal was kept secret until last week when some law firm leaked it. If you wanted to develop a smartwatch in secret, you could do worse than to make a song and dance about some smart-spectacles you are also working on.
...The new Sony works with any Android 4.0+ device
Really? Cool. Last time I checked, the new LiveView 2nd gen watch needed an Xperia-brand mobile for full functionality. If they've opened it up since, I may check it out.
...Samsung isn't really shooting themselves in the foot
Not so sure. If you've just bought an HTC One or somesuch, you're going to be pretty peeved about this, no?
The HTC One might do it:
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017