Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Mar 2014 16:34 UTC
Google

Update: the round model is the Moto 360. Motorola has posted a video about its inception.

Android is coming to wearable devices, with the watch being the first focus.

If you're a developer, there's a new section on developer.android.com/wear focused on wearables. Starting today, you can download a Developer Preview so you can tailor your existing app notifications for watches powered by Android Wear. Because Android for wearables works with Android's rich notification system, many apps will already work well. Look out for more developer resources and APIs coming soon. We're also already working with several consumer electronics manufacturers, including Asus, HTC, LG, Motorola and Samsung; chip makers Broadcom, Imagination, Intel, Mediatek and Qualcomm; and fashion brands like the Fossil Group to bring you watches powered by Android Wear later this year.

This actually looks like the first smartwatch interface done right.

Android's notification system, Google Now, and the card UI feel right at home here. I could definitely see myself wanting one of these. LG will ship the first device in the next quarter, but personally I'm holding out for the circular device shown in Google's videos.

Order by: Score:
Nerd attitude
by Kochise on Tue 18th Mar 2014 17:31 UTC
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

At least the Google Glasses have provided people with the illusion you were listening to them while you were watching a movie. Not so with such a wearable gadget or a smartphone/tablet.

Kochise

Reply Score: 4

battery life
by fran on Tue 18th Mar 2014 17:45 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Now all we need is real breakthroughs in battery technology.

Reply Score: 11

RE: battery life
by tylerdurden on Tue 18th Mar 2014 17:50 UTC in reply to "battery life"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Don't forget display technology, because those circular screens can be easily made in illustrator or whatever video editor design school kids use these days. In real life, however...

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: battery life
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 18th Mar 2014 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE: battery life"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Its difficult to do circular displays? Why? Or are you just worried about aliasing near the edges?

I would have never thought that to be the case.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: battery life
by _txf_ on Wed 19th Mar 2014 03:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: battery life"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

It is difficult because pixels are rectangular, integrated circuits on the device are rectangular, also usually the interconnect is a flat cable that is difficult bend around a circle.

You can of course go fully custom, but then costs go through the roof

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: battery life
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 19th Mar 2014 04:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: battery life"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, isn't the Nest thermostat round? They did it and at a $250 price point.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: battery life
by _txf_ on Wed 19th Mar 2014 04:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: battery life"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

From what I understand, the display in the nest is square and is hidden by the round bezel around it. However even the Moto watch display isn't fully round, as you can see a straight edged bezel on the bottom of the watch.

Edited 2014-03-19 05:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: battery life
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 19th Mar 2014 05:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: battery life"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

http://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/xMQM5UAtkAbVdFZL.huge

This is it. You're kind of right, its a square, but you can see the faint outline of the visible portion that actually had pixels. A smart watch would have could do the same, but it probably would have a little extra bezel to hide the pixels.

In any case, the devices in the video are actually real physical devices, not tricks of video editing. So they did it somehow.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: battery life
by tylerdurden on Wed 19th Mar 2014 06:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: battery life"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Mainly cost: fabbing these displays has to be either very difficult or extremely wasteful (in case they're simply cutting rectangular displays down to circular shapes).

Another issue is from the software side: the traditional addressing of pixels as XY offsets from a common corner as origin of coordinates breaks down when dealing with a circle ;-).

Also what are the visibility characteristics of the display in both low light and day conditions. So far all I see are either overlays or renders, which made me suspicious.


Neither problem is impossible to solve, and obviously either google or motorola must have solutions working, so I'm interested in figuring out how they're going about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: battery life
by Kochise on Wed 19th Mar 2014 07:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: battery life"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Look at Samsung's Galaxy AMOLED screen to see that pixel aren't always square shaped and/or oriented ;)

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: battery life
by tylerdurden on Wed 19th Mar 2014 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: battery life"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I wasn't talking about the pixels themselves being circle shaped (which they aren't), but the overall configuration of the resulting screen.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: battery life
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 19th Mar 2014 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: battery life"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, software might be interesting. I didn't think of the coordinate system mismatch. I'd guess that it would be abstracted away from the developer for something like android wearables. It would probably be more like their 9 part pngs where you define part that can be stretched to the space available.

Reply Score: 2

Future debate
by Alfman on Tue 18th Mar 2014 18:41 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Legacy mobile user: Those things are too damn small to get _real_ work done.

Watch user: They're for people on the go and don't want to be bothered with carrying a bulky device in their pockets.



A watch could probably pick up electronic signals from the muscle tissues when figures move, which could be a source of input from one or both hands - from simulated typing to gestures, shaking, possibly even writing. So, when apple, microsoft, or any patent trolls claim exclusive ownership of this idea at some point in the future, this post here on osnews will serve as evidence that the idea was publicly disclosed before any of them came up with it. How many billions of dollars did I just save the industry in absolutely pathetic litigation? ;)

Edited 2014-03-18 18:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Future debate
by Lennie on Tue 18th Mar 2014 20:21 UTC in reply to "Future debate"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

And touchscreens still suck for productivity.

People did find that certain things worked for mobile devices. And certain things just don't.

So this too, really needs to find a nice where it is most useful. Which will be even less tasks then your phone.

An e-ink smartwatch might even just be better idea, even if people don't know it yet. I just don't want an other device I need to frequently charge.

More likely the smartwatch will to dumb, so it will need to offload certain talks to your smartphone which will also be dumb enough to need to offload certain tasks to 'the cloud'.

As the video says: "the information you most care about". Which just means: Google Now will know everything about you and will tell you what that is.

Maybe it is just me, but I'm really not interested in uploading my life to Google. Enough already.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Future debate
by Morgan on Wed 19th Mar 2014 00:42 UTC in reply to "Future debate"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I have a Sony Smartwatch made in 2012 that responds to multitouch gestures, shaking, and tapping around the bezel, and it will buzz to alert me so I can leave my phone in my pocket. Apart from its crappy screen and low output backlight, I'd say it can do everything a connected watch needs to.

If I get bored with using it stock, Sony has provided the source, SDK and documentation to replace the stock ROM with one of my own design or choosing.

I do like the idea that Google is basically putting Now on a small connected screen; I think that's a good fit. But I'm more inclined to use something like the Sony (which I already own) or a Pebble, for the simplicity and broad range of third party applets.

Reply Score: 5

Nice
by intangible on Tue 18th Mar 2014 19:16 UTC
intangible
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm excited to see them showing off a possible circular screen, that'll look a lot more "normal" and will make it more acceptable to wear.

What I really want is the full Dick Tracy experience without having to tether to my phone; Make my "smartwatch" the phone, and let the "handset" be optional for a second larger screen for apps, internet, camera / video chat, etc.

Hopefully battery life can be increased to a minimum of 1.5-2 days though (I don't mind charging every night, but sometimes I run over the 24 hour limit between sleeping).

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nice
by gan17 on Tue 18th Mar 2014 20:27 UTC in reply to "Nice"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Hopefully battery life can be increased to a minimum of 1.5-2 days though (I don't mind charging every night, but sometimes I run over the 24 hour limit between sleeping).

They really should bundle these with little wireless charging pucks, imho. Price is always key at the end of the day though. Unlike "classic" watches, these things will have relatively short lifespans, so I don't see the common blue-collar bloke spending a few hundred quid every few years for an updated watch. Then again, there will be other forms of wearables in future, so who knows.

I could see myself getting one of these for my pushbike ride, provided they have more durable g-shock types that dodn't need a separate smartphone in future. Having apps like Strava along with maps and weather on your wrist would be useful for a long ride. For dressing up and going out to dinner, I'd probably still prefer an old-skool mechanical automatic.

TL;DR - Interesting prospects, but I'll probably be a late adopter.

Edited 2014-03-18 20:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Nice
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 18th Mar 2014 21:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

FYI, the common bloke doesn't wear watches anymore. I don't know why any sane person does.

I don't think these are for me. Now, if they could simply create a smart pocket watch of some kind ....

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Nice
by intangible on Wed 19th Mar 2014 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice"
intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

Isn't that just called a smartphone? ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Nice
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 19th Mar 2014 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, that was kind of the joke.

We went from pocket watches to wrist watches to phones and maybe back to (smart) watches now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Nice
by Lobotomik on Wed 19th Mar 2014 08:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Scenario A: Reach for your jacket, pull out your mobile, flip the cover open, push the On button, read the time, push off button, flip the cover closed, put mobile back in pocket.

Scenario B: Look at your wrist

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Nice
by Kochise on Wed 19th Mar 2014 10:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Scenario C : wear Google glasses

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Nice
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 19th Mar 2014 16:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

First of all, what's with the cover flipping? That's not normal for most people. You might want to consult with a doctor for that issue.

When it was common to wear watches, glancing at ones watch in many social situations was taken to be an insult.

I've never felt more free than when I stopped wearing a watch. There is something about the idea about having this device physically attached to me that is kind of psychologically troubling to me. Like I'm chained to a clock or other things, rather that being free and present to those around me.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nice
by _txf_ on Tue 18th Mar 2014 22:47 UTC in reply to "Nice"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Hopefully battery life can be increased to a minimum of 1.5-2 days though (I don't mind charging every night, but sometimes I run over the 24 hour limit between sleeping).


Meanwhile I'm stuck charging my Pebble only once a week....

Oh yeah, my screen is always glanceable too. I'll only be on board with these if the screen remains on all the time.

Edited 2014-03-18 22:55 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Nice
by intangible on Wed 19th Mar 2014 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice"
intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

The Pebble is a nice device, but it doesn't have any of the phone, voice, or fitness functionality I crave (along with notifications)...
That wireless is what kills the battery more than an e-ink display can compensate for (I do love e-ink too though).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Nice
by _txf_ on Wed 19th Mar 2014 03:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nice"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

The Pebble is a nice device, but it doesn't have any of the phone, voice, or fitness functionality I crave (along with notifications)...
That wireless is what kills the battery more than an e-ink display can compensate for (I do love e-ink too though).


The pebble actually has an lcd (which is why it can animate), just that it is a special high visibility and low power lcd. The fitness functionality is just a question of using the accelerometer (there are pebble apps that do this already) correctly or interfacing with heart rate monitors via BLE (eventual intent).

I question the requirement to have phone and voice on the device. You have a phone for a reason. If you lose the voice and phone requirements then wireless data requirements don't drive power consumption through the roof.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Nice
by intangible on Wed 19th Mar 2014 03:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Nice"
intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

For me, I hate carrying around a phone all the time... If I can get 90% of functionality out of the watch, that's what I want.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Nice
by Lobotomik on Wed 19th Mar 2014 08:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Nice"
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

It will do mostly NOTHING without a phone. These smart watches are nothing but a smartish IO unit for your cellphone.

They will be able to offer some stand-alone functionality, but I don't know how much. Possibly maps with GPS and accelerometer, for running/cycling, which seems to be the only realistic use case they can come up with. Maybe music? Again for running/cycling.

A camera would be nice.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Nice
by Darai on Wed 19th Mar 2014 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Nice"
Darai Member since:
2009-09-09
RE: Nice
by Morgan on Wed 19th Mar 2014 00:51 UTC in reply to "Nice"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

If you don't mind the size, you may like this:

http://www.neptunepine.com/

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Nice
by intangible on Wed 19th Mar 2014 03:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Nice"
intangible Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks for the heads up; a bit too large and awkward for what I ultimately want, but at least it's in the right direction!

Reply Score: 3

Comment by flypig
by flypig on Tue 18th Mar 2014 19:17 UTC
flypig
Member since:
2005-07-13

Whenever this topic comes up it's obligatory to quote Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, that Earth is "an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think smartwatches are a pretty neat idea."*

While I'm pretty sure Douglas Adams was right, I'm also fairly sure I'll be desperate to own one of these by the end of the year!

[* I may have altered the quote just slightly].

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by flypig
by Philby on Wed 19th Mar 2014 16:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by flypig"
Philby Member since:
2006-11-04

FWIW I'm pretty sure Douglas Adams would have been desperate to own one too!

Reply Score: 2

The circular one is the motorola 360
by Antartica_ on Tue 18th Mar 2014 19:39 UTC
Antartica_
Member since:
2012-12-28

The circular one is the Moto 360, also announced today.

Motorola website about the 360:

http://moto360.motorola.com/

The Motorola blog post:

http://motorola-blog.blogspot.com.es/2014/03/moto-360-its-time.html

Edited 2014-03-18 19:40 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Samsung
by Lennie on Tue 18th Mar 2014 20:13 UTC
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

And in the mean time, Samsung moved away from Android to Tizen for their smartwatches.

Will be interesting to watch (ha ! ;-) this space.

Edited 2014-03-18 20:14 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Ehh...
by computrius on Tue 18th Mar 2014 20:18 UTC
computrius
Member since:
2006-03-26

Everything in the mobile arena, especially this and google glasses, seems so unoriginal/boring to me anymore. I don't think I could possibly be less excited for this.

There are no real advancements being made in anything anymore. It just seems like we are re-hashing the same crap in different formats just to sell more of them without doing the work required to actually innovate.

As far as I can see no one else seems particularly excited about the watch or technology itself either, as much as they are excited to see how well this new incarnation of the same crap sells.

Edited 2014-03-18 20:21 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ehh...
by charlieg on Tue 18th Mar 2014 21:47 UTC in reply to "Ehh..."
charlieg Member since:
2005-07-25

What? How can it not be exciting for you? It's right there, the weather! Oh, it's right there in the sky too.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Ehh...
by Vanders on Tue 18th Mar 2014 23:50 UTC in reply to "Ehh..."
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

As far as I can see no one else seems particularly excited about the watch or technology itself either, as much as they are excited to see how well this new incarnation of the same crap sells.


I don't know, I'm excited to found out how this will evolve into an argument about whether Google or Apple invented the smart watch first.

Reply Score: 6

yeah
by NuxRo on Tue 18th Mar 2014 22:04 UTC
NuxRo
Member since:
2010-09-25

I love watches and have always used one, it's not only practical, but as stated in the video, it's classy and fashionable.

The problem with smart watches, as everyone guessed, is the frickin battery life. Wearables do have a future, but not until they get smaller and with proper battery life.

I could definitely see myself replacing my mobile with such a device + a nice bluetooth handsfree or similar.

Right now I have a solar powered Citizen that's been running uninterrupted since I bought it (2 years ago), it'll be hard to switch to something that requires charging every day (ie, I won't do it).

Reply Score: 3

Seems to me...
by ichi on Wed 19th Mar 2014 01:14 UTC
ichi
Member since:
2007-03-06

Maybe smartwatches should focus on something besides being a proxy display and touch interface for your phone.

It sucks at displaying because the display is small, and it sucks at touch because the target area is again small... yet it's attached to your wrist, and your hand can do lots of natural movements that could be interpreted by the watch without any kind of touching involved.

What about being able to browse your playlist or picking/dropping calls with a wrist flick? Choosing a device (eg. a TV) for sharing by pointing at it? Syncing with your phone's map compass so the direction you are pointing at reflects in your possition in the map?

They are focusing too much in bringing the smartphone to the watch instead of taking advantage of the inherent possibilities of having something attached to such an expressive part of your body.

I don't think I need a smartphone companion that doesn't do anything that my phone can't already do on it's own.

Edited 2014-03-19 01:15 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Seems to me...
by Alfman on Wed 19th Mar 2014 03:36 UTC in reply to "Seems to me..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ichi,

They are focusing too much in bringing the smartphone to the watch instead of taking advantage of the inherent possibilities of having something attached to such an expressive part of your body.


I agree, a standalone watch has limited appeal to me. On a watch, display, audio, touch input, are all subpar compared to a mobile device, which themselves are still subpar to a full computer for my kind of work. However it could still serve as a useful sensory input device and/or front end to enhance many other technologies. Games are obvious, electronic transactions, electronic lock entry, remote control for TV/stereo/lights/HVAC/phonefinder/etc.

For input, it could use pointing, touches, voice recognition, RFID, even EMG I described in another post to detect muscle activity. I think that post got downvoted because some may not have realized that EMGs are a real thing. Here's a video showing how an EMG works:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Muscle-EMG-Sensor-for-a-Microcontro...
Assuming the watch has a snug fit and has an array of sensors around the wrist, it might be feasible to get EMG readings on the watch when you tap your fingers! Certain tap sequences might be used to interact with the watch.

Edited 2014-03-19 03:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Coxy
by Coxy on Wed 19th Mar 2014 06:29 UTC
Coxy
Member since:
2006-07-01

Don't know many people who need "actionable information" ona watch or who think that often about "wearables"... All this garbage is on my mobile which is also with me 24/7

Reply Score: 4

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 19th Mar 2014 11:56 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

When the iPad was introduced a lot of people dismissed it. It was either a large iPod touch or lacked the power/keyboard of a laptop. And then a lot of people bought one.

It may be the same with smart watches. Maybe this market needs an Apple product to put it in the spotlight for the masses to take notice.

But when they do I suspect, just like the iPad, that it may be lacking power, but it compensates in convenience.

In my personal live I can easily come up with a number of situations where it would be very handy to just take a small peek at my wrist compared to grabbing my phone.

For example:

Running. I wear my mobile phone on my arm. I can't look at it unless I take it out, which isn't easy to do while running. I can talk to Siri, but that's also not easy when you're out of breath.

Standing in the cold. Like when I watch my son play soccer. I feel a buzz and have to take the cold while trying to get my phone out only to see (most of the times) that the buzzing wasn't of the important variant.

Meetings, cinemas. How easy it is to peek at your watch while keeping the phone out of sight.

Sure, these are all luxury things. A smart watch doesn't solve anything, but is does make things you can already do a little (or a lot) easier.

Just like the iPad.

And perhaps it does add something, like biometrics or even simple things like environment sensors (temperature, humidity). It could even inform you if your phone has gone out of range, like when you forget it or it has just gotten stolen.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Alfman on Wed 19th Mar 2014 13:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

MOS6510,

When the iPad was introduced a lot of people dismissed it. It was either a large iPod touch or lacked the power/keyboard of a laptop. And then a lot of people bought one.


I have been wanting a tablet since the 90s, but I could not afford one, nor could most people. I think the main factor in getting the public to buy them is the cost coming down and the hardware improving and becoming significantly more portable. In the early 2000s, tablets were still at the ~ $1800 price point IIRC - no deal.

"It turns out people want keyboards. Tablets appeal to rich guys with plenty of other PCs and devices already." - Steve Jobs 2003

Microsoft killed off the "Courier" tablet in 2009, which was very different from microsoft's conventional windows tablet. I suspect even jobs would have been pretty hyped when he saw that.
http://www.brighthand.com/default.asp?newsID=15673&news=Microsoft+C...

In 2010, besides apple, there were a few competitors in the touchscreen tablet market.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/16/dells-7-inch-and-10-inch-streak-...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2368214,00.asp

By the end of 2011, the flood gates had open
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tablet_Computers#cite_note-...
"At the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2011, over 80 new tablets were announced to compete with the iPad."


I think this is how things normally go, once the technology and prices cross a certain threshold, all of a sudden the market will explode nearly overnight. In my opinion consumers wanted them before, but they needed to be made available with the right features and at the right price.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 19th Mar 2014 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I think a lot depends on the execution.

Before Steve Jobs pulled out an iPad I never got very interested in tablet PCs, because they weren't any good (at least the ones I came across). They were pretty rare and only spotted in business environments.

Now I have 2 tablets, an iPad Air and a Dell Venue 11 Pro.

The iPad is, what I consider, a real tablet. Instant on, applications optimized for tablet use, it all flies.

The Venue Pro, however, is really a Windows 8.1 PC without a keyboard. When the screen is off it[i][/i] doesn't come on as quick as the iPad and after a while it apparently turns itself off causing an even longer delay. The Metro apps aren't much good and a number too buggy to even use (Skype, Lync). The desktop applications aren't made for touch input and in this mode the tablets works best in landscape mode, while I prefer portrait.

A week later the keyboard arrived, turning it in to a small laptop. This works much better, but now it's a laptop and not a tablet. I really consider the Venue Pro a "normal" PC with a disconnectable keyboard.

Yes, the Venue Pro is quick 'n' powerful, but it makes a mediocre and sometimes even awful tablet. The iPad Air is much more limited in what it can do, but so much easier to use.

Had Steve Jobs revealed a Venue Pro I doubt it would have sold as many as the iPad did and it would not have heated up the tablet market.

It's the same for smart watches. With these what I think is key is functions and battery life. I personally would like at least 5-7 days of power with normal use. It also needs perfect connectivity with my phone. This means instant communication, no delays. No extreme battery draining of the phone.

If a watch is too expensive, has bad battery life or doesn't offer much functionality I don't think people would want one, even if they want a smart watch.

I think Apple can make a great watch, but I have my doubts if they can also do great battery life.

If they don't come up with something soon I'm tempted to go Pebble.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Alfman on Wed 19th Mar 2014 14:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

MOS6510,

If a watch is too expensive, has bad battery life or doesn't offer much functionality I don't think people would want one, even if they want a smart watch.


That's it, people will only enter the market for one with the right features and at the right prices.

To me personally, I see more value in it as a secondary tethered device than a standalone device. I'd much rather use a larger touch screen for any prolonged period of time. IE: Who's calling/texting me? It could significantly improve the bluetooth headset experience, etc.

Voice recognition is an option, but that can be awkward and unappreciated by others in public places like a train, theater, classroom, restaurant, etc. Touch based IO doesn't have this problem.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 19th Mar 2014 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

My worry after battery life is the "right price".

If companies, like Apple, want to make profit it's going to be expensive. While I think Apple shouldn't try to make much or any profit and offer the watch as a way to make their other products more appealing. Take a small hit on the watch, make up for it on iPhone, iPad and even AppleTV and iMac sales.

I'll wait and see. Apple's 2nd generation products are always much better than the 1st ones anyway.

Meanwhile I do have a Seiko UC-2002 pocket watch that can dock with a small computer which then uses the watch as a display for its BASIC programming language. Which is a challenge on a slow computer with a 10 x 4 display.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Morgan on Thu 20th Mar 2014 04:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

It could even inform you if your phone has gone out of range, like when you forget it or it has just gotten stolen.


I found this to be the most useful function of the Sony Smartwatch. If I stepped more than about 20-30 feet from my phone, the watch would lose connection and start buzzing at me. If I couldn't find my phone, say I had left it under a book or something, I could use the watch's "find phone" feature to set off an alarm.

At work I'm often called to the other side of the building to fix a networking or computer issue, and often I'll use my phone to troubleshoot. When I don't wear the watch I end up leaving the phone on my desk more often than not, and I have to walk all the way back to my office to get it. The watch paid for itself simply by helping me avoid lost time.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Thu 20th Mar 2014 05:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

My wife really needs that!

A while ago I went to play basketball and when I was finished I couldn't find my iPhone. Hysterical panic, but it turned out I left it at home. My wife did send me a message I had forgotten my phone (?LOGIC ERROR).

It's not often I forget my phone and I've never forgotten it in a public place, but having a watch to help me remind does comfort the mind.

And my wife does misplace hers a lot, mostly in the house (on silent, to make it just a little bit harder to find it).

Reply Score: 3

2 Cents
by vtpoet on Wed 19th Mar 2014 13:09 UTC
vtpoet
Member since:
2013-12-31

And they would be: Many of ya'll sound like a bunch of old cranks. If this is going to take off, it will probably be with the younger/youngest generation: teens and young twenty somethings. The [cough] young and dynamic generation that probably doesn't represent most of those who comment here. Ya'll are gettin' old and crusty. What? Late twenties? Feh. Over the hill. ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: 2 Cents
by Morgan on Thu 20th Mar 2014 05:03 UTC in reply to "2 Cents"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You mean the generation that grew up not wearing watches in the first place? Because who needs a watch when you've had a cellphone in your hands since puberty, right?

I'm in my late 30s, and even though I grew up a wristwatch aficionado (well, as much as I could afford to be anyway), I quit wearing one about 10 years ago, when I found myself checking my cellphone for the time instead of my wrist. I only started wearing a watch again when I got my hands on a good smartwatch, and even then only wore it to work. The hassle of charging it once or twice a week made it one more thing to deal with, and it became one too many. I still have it, but I don't use it much at all.

Besides the fact that the current teen/young adult generation doesn't need to wear a watch to tell time, the idea of a watch as a fashion accessory has also diminished a great deal, at least here in the States. Time was, one could find the latest and greatest Casio, Timex, Armitron, Fossil, Bulova, and Citizen watches in the local department store or mall. Now, all you see are $10 craptastic junk watches with fake leather or cheap plastic bands, with dead batteries because they never sell. The only "expensive" watches are those huge fake-gemstone-encrusted monstrosities that are usually only seen in certain music videos.

Damn, I am getting old and crusty!!

Reply Score: 3

Retro
by sb56637 on Wed 19th Mar 2014 13:44 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

The battery in these newfangled smartwatches probably lasts what, 12 hours at best? So forget about checking the weather (to say nothing of the time) if you leave early in the morning and don't get back before nightfall. Or I suppose I could connect my wristwatch (together with my wrist) to a charging cable while I'm at my desk to keep the battery topped off. I would feel like a convicted criminal on an electronic tether, but hey, I'll always know the time and weather.

No thanks. They'll have to pry my 1990-era Casio digital watch out of my cold, dead hands (or wrist). Some digital Casio watches have a 10 year battery. 10 YEARS! That's 3652 days. Mine even has a databank for alarms with custom reminder messages plus a phonebook. My Casio 1990's tech wristwatch saved me from a major mess once when I got robbed while travelling. Of course the first thing the thieves got was my smartphone, together with my wallet and debit card. But of course they never took a second look at my Casio wristwatch. So within minutes after being robbed, I looked up the necessary numbers I had stored in my watch, borrowed a phone, called a family member, and got my debit card cancelled. And that's all with 1990's technology. Long live my Casio wristwatch.

Edited 2014-03-19 13:45 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Retro
by Kochise on Wed 19th Mar 2014 14:21 UTC in reply to "Retro"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03
RE[2]: Retro
by sb56637 on Wed 19th Mar 2014 14:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Retro"
sb56637 Member since:
2006-05-11
RE[3]: Retro
by MOS6510 on Wed 19th Mar 2014 18:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Retro"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Oi! That's a very cool watch!

I often wear a Casio F-91W. Cheap, great battery life, rather basic (time, alarm, chime, stopwatch, light).

Because it's very light and small it's very easy to wear as it doesn't get in the way, bother you or gets in to a fight with your sleeves.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Retro
by zima on Fri 21st Mar 2014 19:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Retro"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Is that the one for making bombs? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Retro
by MOS6510 on Fri 21st Mar 2014 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Retro"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Maybe, why do you want to know? :-p

Reply Score: 2

RE: Retro
by Morgan on Thu 20th Mar 2014 05:08 UTC in reply to "Retro"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

The battery in these newfangled smartwatches probably lasts what, 12 hours at best?


Three to five days for my Sony Smartwatch, but even that is annoying. I'd love to have one that can go a month on a charge with moderate daily use. If Sony were smart (ha!) they would use an e-paper screen instead of that crappy low-res eyesore. There's simply no need for a complicated color screen on a watch face designed for notifications and minimal controls.

Reply Score: 3

The Orange Growth History
by korpenkraxar on Wed 19th Mar 2014 13:54 UTC
korpenkraxar
Member since:
2005-09-10

"Any society is doomed once it becomes wealthy enough and therefore sedentary enough to plant orange trees."

How lazy have we become when it is too cumbersome to produce the smartphone out of the pocket? It is just another gizmo to charge on a regular basis (Bluetooth headsets anyone?) with very little added value. No thanks.

I can highly recommend the Seiko Premier Kinetic Perpetual if you have cash to burn on a fantastic watch. It is built like a tank and recharged continuously by kinetic energy from your arm movements. No other battery charging or changing required. Now that is a nerds watch.

Reply Score: 4

RE: The Orange Growth History
by tylerdurden on Wed 19th Mar 2014 18:27 UTC in reply to "The Orange Growth History"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

"Any society is doomed once it becomes wealthy enough and therefore sedentary enough to plant orange trees."


What the heck does that even mean?

Reply Score: 3

health effects
by icicle on Wed 19th Mar 2014 15:52 UTC
icicle
Member since:
2013-12-07

Assuming that long duration close proximity to cell phones is bad for our health, it makes me wonder about smart watches. They're strapped directly to us.

Reply Score: 2

RE: health effects
by Kochise on Wed 19th Mar 2014 16:41 UTC in reply to "health effects"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Bluetooth is 1000x less powerful than phone's antenna, the range don't exceed 10m. That's why it's better to have your phone in your pocket and use a bluetooth headset.

Now imagine a low-power Bluetooth that reduce the power even more to a 2m range, enough to communicate with the watch.

Kochise

Reply Score: 3

I'm with Thom...
by elektrik on Wed 19th Mar 2014 21:13 UTC
elektrik
Member since:
2006-04-18

I love the round one! SO gonna buy it!

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Tractor
by Tractor on Thu 20th Mar 2014 10:16 UTC
Tractor
Member since:
2006-08-18

Am I the only one to have the feeling that the screen of the watch has been numerically and deceptively edited to look so clear and sharp ?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Tractor
by Alfman on Thu 20th Mar 2014 20:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by Tractor"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Tractor,

Am I the only one to have the feeling that the screen of the watch has been numerically and deceptively edited to look so clear and sharp ?


I'm curious too. It looks fake to me, the focal depth looks wrong. Not that I'm bothered with using concept images/video before it's physically ready to demo.

Reply Score: 2