Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Sep 2013 22:09 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless The Verge on the Galaxy Gear:

There are a couple of significant downsides that temper my enthusiasm for the new Gear. First and foremost is the speed and intuitiveness of the user interface - or rather, the lack thereof. There's a tangible lag to anything you do with the Gear, while the swipe gestures are hard to figure out and do different things depending on where you are in the menus.

[...]

Also important will be the Galaxy Gear's battery life. It does use the Bluetooth 4.0 Low Energy standard to communicate, but at 315mAh its battery is decidedly small. Samsung promises "about a day" of endurance from the Gear, but by the end of our briefing with the company, the cameras on most of its demo units were refusing to turn on due to the watches running low on power.

Yeah, no. I don't know what a smartwatch is, but this, is not it.

Order by: Score:
Smart*
by judgen on Wed 4th Sep 2013 22:26 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

Smart means having predictive capabilities and reasoning. None of the smart* products of today qualifies as smart and is mostly just app devices and a marketing moniker.
Smart fridge, smart ice maker, smart phone, smart watch, smart TV, smart coffe brewer.. and so on.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Smart*
by henderson101 on Thu 5th Sep 2013 11:53 UTC in reply to "Smart*"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Smart means having predictive capabilities and reasoning...


No, no it doesn't. Not for phones. The term Smartphone was coined to mean any phone that was capable of being more than a "feature" phone. The elements you're assigning to "Smart" came a long a lot later for phones.

Originally a smart phone was something like a small computer running a specific mobile operating system (i.e. not a random OS created specifically for the phone by the vendor, examples being Symbian, iOS, Android, BlackberryOS, Maemo/Meego...), with a large screen usually with touch input (resistive or capacitive), installable apps (or some potential for expanding the installed apps), a full web browser, WiFi and a wired connection to a computer (serial or USB.) This is not unlike the combination of a PDA and a mobile phone. Though the definition is vague, as it's mainly a marketing term now anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone

Couple that with the fact that it's a US term that made it's way to other countries, and that in the UK the term "Feature phone" was not used till well after the term "Smart phone" was established, it's really not a very useful description anyway.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Smart*
by JAlexoid on Thu 5th Sep 2013 12:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Smart*"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The term smartphone is used as a descriptor of an amalgamation of a PDA and a phone.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Smart*
by kurkosdr on Thu 5th Sep 2013 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Smart*"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

The term smartphone is used as a descriptor of an amalgamation of a PDA and a phone.

Exactly. The term "smartphone" meant a phone with PDA functionality, aka with the ability to run real apps with access to files, camera, 3D acceleration chip (if any). Aka not limited to Java or BREW 'apps".

Then the term was hijacked by Steve Jobs to mean "any phone with a browser - aka capable of running 'web apps'- or whatever else your marketing department wants it to mean". Some leople think "smartphone" means "phone with a touchscreen".

Edited 2013-09-05 22:23 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Smart*
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 6th Sep 2013 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Smart*"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Its a difficult term to define, and I've been in numerous online arguments over the term. But one thing I think most people *should* agree on, is that it shouldn't be tied to a specific programming language/technology being available.

So saying "not Limited to Java or Brew 'apps'" is a pretty terrible definition. What language would you say most Android apps are developed in?

I would instead add an open app development platform requirement. Which would allow you to include things like the Treo , but exclude things like the sidekick,razr, etc.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Smart*
by henderson101 on Fri 6th Sep 2013 09:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Smart*"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

The term smartphone is used as a descriptor of an amalgamation of a PDA and a phone.


Which is what I said:

This is not unlike the combination of a PDA and a mobile phone.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Smart*
by benytocamela on Sat 7th Sep 2013 07:39 UTC in reply to "Smart*"
benytocamela Member since:
2013-05-16

What's your definition for "reasoning."

Of note, smartphones (among other gadgets) have tons of predictive capabilities, from structures in their microprocessor(s) dedicated exclusively for predictive purposes, up to predictors all the way through the software stack. In many cases they can be significantly better specialized predictors than humans. So they're half way there.

Reply Score: 1

Mirasol or death
by kragil on Wed 4th Sep 2013 22:39 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

This will be much nicer:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/04/qualcomm-toq-smartwatch/

unless you want to make spy photos.

Reply Score: 2

Waterproof
by WorknMan on Wed 4th Sep 2013 22:58 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Does anyone know if this thing is waterproof, or will you have to take it off every time it rains?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Waterproof
by MOS6510 on Thu 5th Sep 2013 04:31 UTC in reply to "Waterproof"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I hope you wear waterproof jeans!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Waterproof
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 6th Sep 2013 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Waterproof"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

I hope you wear waterproof jeans!


Last I checked, human limbs don't tend to become inoperable after exposure to water...

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Waterproof
by MOS6510 on Fri 6th Sep 2013 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Waterproof"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Depends how near any "Beware Crocodiles" sign are.

But if limbs don't melt he can leave his watch on too.

Reply Score: 2

Re:
by kurkosdr on Wed 4th Sep 2013 23:06 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

I lost interest when I heard about the one day battery life. As if having to charge my phone every night wasn't annoying enough.

And AMOLED? In order for AMOLEDs to be readable under sunlight (so this thing can function as a watch) they have to draw battery like there is no tommorow.

At least Qualcomm were smart enough to equip their smartwatch with an e-ink display.

PS: Anyway, this is probably good, because Samsung is getting a bit arrogant lately and a flop is needed to put them back in their senses.

Edited 2013-09-04 23:09 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Re:
by kwan_e on Thu 5th Sep 2013 04:02 UTC in reply to "Re:"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I lost interest when I heard about the one day battery life. As if having to charge my phone every night wasn't annoying enough.

And AMOLED? In order for AMOLEDs to be readable under sunlight (so this thing can function as a watch) they have to draw battery like there is no tommorow.


I wonder what Samsung is doing wrong. I have a Cowon J3 media player that has an AMOLED screen the size of a phone. I can get more than two days out of it if I had it on the whole day.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Re:
by Fergy on Thu 5th Sep 2013 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Re:"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I wonder what Samsung is doing wrong. I have a Cowon J3 media player that has an AMOLED screen the size of a phone. I can get more than two days out of it if I had it on the whole day.

Do you watch movies on it? Because if you barely use the screen it doesn't matter if it is a CRT.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Re:
by Nelson on Fri 6th Sep 2013 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Re:"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It depends on the type of content used on the device. Smartphones see a lot of webbrowsing which tend to use brighter backgrounds (whites on OLEDs burn more power than whites on LCDs iirc).

But at the scale we're talking (smartwatches with tiny batteries) e-Ink (and mirasol) are probably better fits for the power profile.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Re:
by benytocamela on Sat 7th Sep 2013 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Re:"
benytocamela Member since:
2013-05-16

You may be comparing apples to bananas

Your MP3 player has, perhaps, a larger battery, it uses a very very low end processor or perhaps just an asic, and probably does not have any type of radio.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Re:
by kwan_e on Sat 7th Sep 2013 11:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re:"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Your MP3 player has, perhaps, a larger battery,


Yes, but the Gear is a watch.

it uses a very very low end processor


It plays videos.

and probably does not have any type of radio.


It has a radio.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Re:
by benytocamela on Sun 8th Sep 2013 03:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Re:"
benytocamela Member since:
2013-05-16


Yes, but the Gear is a watch.


Technically, it's a small computer in the shape of a watch.


It plays videos.


It only plays a restricted set of codecs, so perhaps it does not need much processing power (relatively). I still think the watch form factor can only accommodate tiny batteries as the main reason for the poor battery life.




It has a radio.


It has an FM radio receiver, very different from bluetooth/wifi/etc type of radios.

In any case, I assume this is a rushed device to get to market before Apple does. So it's probably not going to be that good.

Edited 2013-09-08 03:13 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Re:
by No it isnt on Thu 5th Sep 2013 16:34 UTC in reply to "Re:"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Actually, you're wrong about AMOLED. Nokia's ClearBlack makes them perfectly readable in sunlight, even at low brightness (but not quite as low as the lock screen on the N9 uses). But yes, some sort of e-ink would be much better.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Re:
by Nelson on Fri 6th Sep 2013 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Re:"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Actually, you're wrong about AMOLED. Nokia's ClearBlack makes them perfectly readable in sunlight, even at low brightness (but not quite as low as the lock screen on the N9 uses). But yes, some sort of e-ink would be much better.


That works to a limited extent, the Lumia 920 for example comes with "super bright mode" which temporarily cranks up the screen brightness beyond even what the Windows Phone settings allow and make the screen perfectly readable in sunlight.

There's probably (for now) no better way to do it than cranking up the brightness and using up more energy. I'd say its a decent trade off for a smartphone, but for a watch maybe not so much.

Mirasol is promising, but that's really conceptware still. I think smartwatches might be the greatest use case for it.

Reply Score: 2

Omate Truesmart
by guzzard on Wed 4th Sep 2013 23:23 UTC
guzzard
Member since:
2013-09-04

This is a smartwatch IMOHO..

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/omate/omate-truesmart-water-res...

Looking forward to getting mine in Nov :-)

Reply Score: 5

A 24 hour watch...
by kwan_e on Thu 5th Sep 2013 00:20 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Samsung promises "about a day" of endurance from the Gear,


Well, at least you can set your watch to it...

Reply Score: 4

Well we don't agree on much
by leos on Thu 5th Sep 2013 05:37 UTC
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

Yeah, no. I don't know what a smartwatch is, but this, is not it.


Well said. There is potential for a smart watch but a dumbed down smartphone with a wrist strap is not it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Well we don't agree on much
by MOS6510 on Thu 5th Sep 2013 06:08 UTC in reply to "Well we don't agree on much"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I saw a comparison with an older iPod Nano, which could be transformed in to a watch.

The Nano could do a lot more, had much longer battery life and was cheaper.

I don't care what a watch does if it doesn't have sufficient battery life, because then for me it's almost useless. Battery life of smart phones is already near unacceptable and I don't want to carry two devices that might not make it to the end of the day if used.

Reply Score: 5

Yeah but...
by shotsman on Thu 5th Sep 2013 06:12 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

The awkward sod in me wonders if Samsung got wind of what appler were going to release and rushed this out because theirs is so bad compared to what Apple are/might be going to release next week. Pure speculation mind you.

But as has been said, Samsung were/are in danger of getting a wee bit big headed (following Apple there) and started thinking they can do no wrong. A nice expensive flop will I hope focus their minds of improving what they are doing well but could do a lot better instead of trying to be everything to everyone.
Well, I never, they'll be making cars next...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yeah but...
by zima on Thu 5th Sep 2013 15:50 UTC in reply to "Yeah but..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I never, they'll be making cars next...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Samsung_Motors

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Hayoo!
by Hayoo! on Thu 5th Sep 2013 06:21 UTC
Hayoo!
Member since:
2013-04-13

A timepiece that's subject to bugs and provides an attack vector (wireless connectivity). Nice...

Reply Score: 2

Yawn
by galvanash on Thu 5th Sep 2013 06:46 UTC
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

They totally wiffed that one...

Reply Score: 2

Simple
by wocowboy on Thu 5th Sep 2013 08:31 UTC
wocowboy
Member since:
2006-06-01

Uh....no. That's all that needs to be said about this product.

Reply Score: 3

rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's very difficult to actually say anything kind about the Samsung Galaxy Gear because it basically suffers from most of the major drawbacks of so-called "smartwatches" to date:

* Generally fuglier than most normal watches.
* Expensive.
* Lasts less than a day on battery.
* Does very little except tell the time when another device (phone or tablet) isn't within range.
* Will *only* pair with other Samsung devices (WTF?!).

What I want to see in a smartwatch is:

* Reasonably good looking (metal strap if possible - resin ones break...see all of Casios range!).
* Reasonable price (ideally under $200 for the cheapest model).
* Colour e-ink display (no other type of display makes sense surely?).
* Ability to act completely independently for most of its operations (e.g. run apps, change clockfaces, various normal watch modes like stopwatch, countdown timer, alarm, radio controlled to keep time in sync?).
* Good battery life - anything less than a week between charges is unacceptable in a watch, IMHO.
* Solar powered (e.g. maybe the entire bezel is made
up of solar panels).
* Display turns off and watch goes into sleep mode when you're not looking at it (use sensors to determine this).

I doubt we'll see wi-fi on a watch though because of the power drain, so I guess it's Bluetooth, which I never use myself and I have a lot of devices with Bluetooth!

Reply Score: 4

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I think these 2 don't go together:

* Ability to act completely independently for most of its operations (e.g. run apps, change clockfaces, various normal watch modes like stopwatch, countdown timer, alarm, radio controlled to keep time in sync?).

* Good battery life - anything less than a week between charges is unacceptable in a watch, IMHO.

Look at this device, it has shitty battery life.

Look at the Google Glass, it runs less on the device, it still has shitty battery life.

Someone should just make a simple device which can run some simple pre-installed apps and be a good remote for notifications for smartphone and use the lowpower bluetooth for communications. Then maybe you'll get some proper battery life.

I guess that is what the Toq is.

Edited 2013-09-05 13:57 UTC

Reply Score: 4

BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

Your post starts off like you're disagreeing but then you seem to not contradict what would be "ideal".

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I'm just saying lots of apps and long battery life don't go together. If you want the battery life, the only apps it would include would be very simple pre-installed, very optimized for the device. And probably no installing other apps. No development kits, no nothing.

So basically mostly a dump watch ;-)

Reply Score: 3

Well there is one that might qualify
by p13. on Thu 5th Sep 2013 10:14 UTC
p13.
Member since:
2005-07-10

Motorola got it mostly right (by accident) a while ago with the motoactv.
Standalone apps, gps, wifi, the lot. It was just waay too expensive.

Reply Score: 3

Basic needs
by MadRat on Thu 5th Sep 2013 11:36 UTC
MadRat
Member since:
2006-02-17

I see no reason a smart watch is over $50 considering the kindles and android tablets available under $100. It doesn't need to do much and I don't need Internet on it. I don't need mp3's on it. Even with mp3's Bluetooth connected to an ear device at that is chicken scratch capability for an mp3 player. Any use of Bluetooth should be on demand and not continuous.

The display is critical. It needs to be readable in the sun. E-ink isn't a bad choice for basic watches. Smart watches will need more dynamic displays.

Smart watches will make sense when flexible OLED screens come out and we can use 16:9 or 16:10 resolutions. Big number displays with date and perhaps a notices task bar with symbols for things like new mail, low battery, alarms, sound (muted or not), alerts, etc. rather than being another email inbox, just a truncated cache delivered from another device like a phone or desktop. Wifi for directly connecting to the Internet is unnecessary, plus it's a battery killer as it continuously polls network connections.

It would be nice if it charged and connected to PCs using a standard phone micro USB cable. I can see issues with something like this in an intel shop...

Reply Score: 5

Not enthused
by Drunkula on Thu 5th Sep 2013 14:07 UTC
Drunkula
Member since:
2009-09-03

It's a step in the right direction. But... Meh. Too much [cost]. Too big. Not enough battery.

Reply Score: 2

Is there a market?
by bolomkxxviii on Thu 5th Sep 2013 16:09 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

I just wonder if there really is a market for this type of thing. The only watches that sell anymore are the ones people wear primarily as jewelry or status symbols. How are you going to make a call with a smartwatch? the speaker has to be tiny and tinny. How about a smart bluetooth headset that will let you control your phone while it is in your pocket?

Reply Score: 4

Not one good thing
by tkeith on Thu 5th Sep 2013 16:19 UTC
tkeith
Member since:
2010-09-01

I'm not really the target market for a smart watch(never worn a watch, don't want to), but I don't see where they were going with this. It's basically a smaller Galaxy S for your hand? They are really taking the bigger is better thing to the next level. Is there anyone who wants it that big? Anyone who thinks having a color screen is worth the battery life of less than a full day?

This can't be good when pretty much every blog and news site has a negative story on it.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Janglin_Jack
by Janglin_Jack on Thu 5th Sep 2013 16:46 UTC
Janglin_Jack
Member since:
2010-10-20

so, i press play on watch, and music plays... on smartphone? wow, really useful, because it's too much trouble to press play in the smartphone?
this thing doesn't make any sense...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Janglin_Jack
by benytocamela on Sat 7th Sep 2013 08:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by Janglin_Jack"
benytocamela Member since:
2013-05-16

It actually makes lots of sense. You could keep your phone on your pocket while your read a text on your watch. You could have your phone in a speaker/amplifier dock, and you could control the playlist remotely from your watch without having to go to the dock to change the song, volume, etc. You could use to interact with voice assisted apps/service (e.g. Siri, etc) directly without having to pull out your cell phone. It could also work as a stand alone audio player for working out and what not. Some people could finally act out their Dick Tracy fetish.Etc, etc, etc.

So there are plenty of applications. Even though I find Samsung's device kind of ugly, 'm sure other vendors will start getting into the smartwatch space, and will have more refined offerings.

Edited 2013-09-07 08:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Janglin_Jack
by Janglin_Jack on Mon 9th Sep 2013 08:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Janglin_Jack"
Janglin_Jack Member since:
2010-10-20

well, is that so much trouble pulling your phone out of your pocket?
even if you're driving, it doesn't make much sense, since lot's of cars already interact with your phone, you don't need a watch for that.
and voice assistant for android already exists, once again, you don't need a new device for that. and how well will this thing work with non-english languages? will it understand other languages?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by zlynx
by zlynx on Thu 5th Sep 2013 19:27 UTC
zlynx
Member since:
2005-07-20

Samsung needs someone like Steve Jobs. Someone to actually use the device and has the power to order changes until it is something he or she would actually use. Who does this for Samsung?

I could see a watch with a one day battery life IF it was a full 24 hour day and recharging it meant dropping on a wireless charge pad when I took it off at night.

It also needs to provide something significantly better than pulling a smartphone out of my shirt pocket. I don't even wear a normal watch anymore because my phone is a perfectly decent pocket watch. Pretty much the only reason to wear a watch anymore is for the decoration which means it has to look good.

Reply Score: 3

There's potential
by p13. on Fri 6th Sep 2013 08:18 UTC
p13.
Member since:
2005-07-10

This might prove to be more useful once it's been rooted. It seems to be running android. There's potential there. Though, i think the camera is just a gimmick, imho.

I do think it is overpriced, however.

Reply Score: 1

..
by Brunis on Fri 6th Sep 2013 08:25 UTC
Brunis
Member since:
2005-11-01

Yeah, this sounds like a joke, i'm not an Apple fan, but maybe they should wait for Apple's product to come out, so they know what to copy!?

Reply Score: 2

BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

Watching companies like Samsung try to come up with original ideas is like watching 6 year-olds play soccer: a clumped-together herd mindlessly following the ball, with no one trying to anticipate where the ball will be. Except here, it's as if additional balls keep getting tossed out & the herd keeps breaking off into smaller clumps, all chasing a progressively smaller piece of the overall whole. One groups breaks off to chase "Smart TVs", one group breaks off to chase "Smart watches," another breaks off to chase the "wearable computing" ball, etc.

Hell, it wouldn't take much to convince me that the whole "smart watch" thing was actually just trolling that's gone completely overboard. "Hai guyz, let's come up with a completely useless product, get the gadget-fetish sites to hype the shit out of it, and see if we can trick our competitors into wasting money on coming up with their own version LOL!"

Reply Score: 3

Killer Ap
by MadRat on Fri 6th Sep 2013 18:04 UTC
MadRat
Member since:
2006-02-17

I always liked the iPods that allowed time shifting radio listening. Since nobody seems to want to do this in car radios, how about a time shift for audio in your watch. Basically it's always recording the sounds around you. A snooping device, true, but a handy way to rewind that last conversation at the meeting. Catch your pointy head boss in a lie. Oops, never mind.

Reply Score: 3