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.

Thread beginning with comment 571479
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Smart*
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 6th Sep 2013 14:38 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 Parent Score: 3