Slashdot Mirror
No Love From Ars For Samsung's New Smart Watch
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.
So I heard you like phones so we made a miniature phone for you phone so you can talk while you call.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
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...
Hands up all those who've been desperately waiting for a 'smart watch' to stick on their wrist?
Yeah, thought not.
... 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.
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
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.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
In the article he says that Samsung are the first - what about Sony Smartwatch 2? Seems like it was out before Samsung
Of course, it's wrong.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Time to get ticked off by Mike Royko
Rolex wearer vs. Mike Royko's Casio Databank.
Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
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/
oh yeah, Ars also floods my "back" buffer. wtf?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
A smart watch that connects to your smart phone? What a great idea.
How strange that no one ever thought of it before.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Well it might be a pro-Apple site but it doesn't mean what ARS said about Gear is inaccurate. I think this is a case of Samsung making a strawman product for the world to pick-on and determine what's to be improved. Not doing so is a disservice to the company. Let's see what Gear 2 will bring.
Hey there, they actually said all, except for Apple and Motorola, were caught doing it. Have you found any independent third party site saying anything different? Just because a site seems biased (and probably are) it doesn't mean they are wrong, just that you don't like their bias (probably because it differs from your own). No offense, I'm biased, too, as I think nearly all people are, towards to away from certain groups, even if they don't admit it.
Anyone notice the slight flaw in Ars Technica report? Very funny thing - in the article they say its normal thickness of a wrist watch, right after a photo, which clearly shows it to be about 4 times thicker than a normal watch. I don't know what Ars considers to be a "normal" watch, but to me it looks like about the size of a small minibar.
Care to show some independent sources for your claim? I say you're getting money from Samsung to blast Apple. My proof is your ridiculous post.
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...
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
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".
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Nice of you to slide a relevant comment in right at the end, since the bulk of your screed has fuck-all to do with the topic at hand, which is that Samsung created a shitty product and people are calling it shitty.
So what do we call this new breed, the anti-fanboy? Where, if someone has a negative opinion about a product it's because they're a fanboy in the other direction supposedly? Maybe - just maybe - the product really *does* just suck, and it sucks all on its own with no bias involved!
"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.
David Pogue called it a "human interface train wreck. All of it."
Wait. If Samsung and other Android vendors cheated on benchmarks, and Ars found out and reported it, that is a bad thing?
And if they pointed out that Motorola, Google and Apple didn't cheat, that is also somehow a bad thing?
Talk about a fanboy.
.... everything they show is 100% true and working.
Its not like companies have never created any fake product videos or use CGI or any kind of green screen tech to turn a static image into a simulation of what they would like to see working.
Nope ... it must be all true ... and how dare you question the reality of vaporware.
I kinda wanted one but I have a few issues with it overall before I ever jump in. Has to handle impact well and has to have a decent battery life.
I personally don't need something that does everything my PC does, that is what my PC is for. I just wanted one that has the phone built in, a watch, and maybe a calculator and possibly GPS and compass for if I go out and explore. I don't need it to do anything beyond that really.
Oh yeah, and needs bluetooth support cause I am not trying to do the James Bond thing for phone calls. They nail these points right here and they may have something decent so long as it comes at a decent price and doesn't have a cloth strap or something that ends up smelling like a foot after you wear it too long and makes your wrist burn from the stuff that never seems to wash off.
They don't have to pay for fanboys like yourself.
Did you post on your FB about how Samsung "copied" the gold colour for their cases despite the announcement only being a reminder, and that other phones circa 2004 were also gold?
I lol'd when you say a lot of the other MP3 players out there were "terrible". Most of the people I know who don't have technical skill still "manage" to find and load music to their MP3 players. Just because it sold lots, means nothing. The iSeries devices are case and point: multitasking, copy-paste, fingerprint scanners, higher resolution / PPI displays, voice assistants, etc., were *ALL* done exactly the same way or extremely close to the same (and then surpassed shortly thereafter).
From X Windows wiki: "Several bitmap display systems preceded X. From Xerox came the Alto (1973) and the Star (1981). From Apollo Computer came Display Manager (1981) ... The Unix world had the Andrew Project (1982) and Rob Pike's Blit terminal (1982)." This, of course, excludes "W".
First personal computer? I laughed. See here: http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml (obviously some aren't really "personal computers" in the sense of today's definition), but the IBM 5100 introduced in September 1975. Expensive, but then a lot of people consider ithings expensive too. This, of course, excludes any home console systems which I perceive the iSeries devices to be, but could run selectable software of your choice. If you consider any iDevice a "personal computer" (even in tablet form), you must also define home consoles to be the same.
If you're talking about stylus-less phones, there were plenty of them -- of note, the LG Prada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada , revealed in 2006. They were not the first, and they were not the only one. Capacitive screens just happened to become affordable at the time.
So I reiterate: "They don't have to pay for fanboys like yourself."
The Verge thought it was shit too
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
"They don't have to pay for fanboys like yourself."
Nice, angry ad hominem.
Want a cookie?
"Did you post on your FB about how Samsung "copied" the gold colour for their cases despite the announcement only being a reminder, and that other phones circa 2004 were also gold?"
No. Had you foam on your mouth when you wrote that?
"I lol'd when you say a lot of the other MP3 players out there were "terrible". "
They were. Guess why they haven't sold so well. Guess why they were dead in the water when the iPod arrived.
"Most of the people I know who don't have technical skill still "manage" to find and load music to their MP3 players."
Sure. But not really well. Limited in its appeal. Doesn't contradict the fact that the usability was terrible.
" Just because it sold lots, means nothing. "
Wrong. It means that people like what they see. It means it appeals to them.
"The iSeries devices are case and point: multitasking, copy-paste, fingerprint scanners, higher resolution / PPI displays, voice assistants, etc., were *ALL* done exactly the same way or extremely close to the same (and then surpassed shortly thereafter)."
And no one care. Why? Maybe the implementation is better. Boom
Case in point the fingerprint sensor in the Moto Atrix. It failed after half a year, was not reliable and awkward to use. Compare that to the iPhone sensor. While the jury is still out regarding reliability, it's an instant hit. And better.
Does Apple always do things first or the best. No. No one said that.
But neither should they be ridiculed or underestimated.
They are an important force in the IT sector since 37 years. Almost everyone acknowledges that, including Gates. Except rapid Apple haters.
"From X Windows wiki: "Several bitmap display systems preceded X. From Xerox came the Alto (1973) and the Star (1981)."
The Alto was a prototype. Not usable. That's what I wrote. The Star costed $50000-100000 and was only usable in a network. It was not a GUI personal computer usable by everyone. Contrary to the Macintosh. My point stands.
"From Apollo Computer came Display Manager (1981) ... The Unix world had the Andrew Project (1982) and Rob Pike's Blit terminal (1982)." "
None of these where buyable, affordable ready to use personal computers.
"http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml (obviously some aren't really "personal computers" in the sense of today's definition), but the IBM 5100 introduced in September 1975. "
It did cost $9000-20000 dollar, weighed 50 lbs and was very limited with its 5" screen. It was non expandable. APL was a nightmare.
Apple ][ was relatively cheap, light, could drive a normal monitor, and expandable.
The 5100 was NOT a personal computer. It was certainly a computer with a discrete CPU. But not a personal computer.
"This, of course, excludes any home console systems which I perceive the iSeries devices to be,"
You opinion is quite irrelevant for everyone else. Many perceive it differently.
" but could run selectable software of your choice. If you consider any iDevice a "personal computer" (even in tablet form)"
I do. And they are.
", you must also define home consoles to be the same."
No. Home consoles (if you mean what I mean. VCS2600 etc.) are just that consoles. Put a cartridge into them and that's that. They are not expandable. They could not be programmed. (Before you ask, yes you can program an iPad on itself. )
"If you're talking about stylus-less phones, there were plenty of them -- of note, the LG Prada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada , revealed in 2006. "
No. The official public presentation was on 18th January 2007.
The iPhone Keynote was on 9th January 2007. 9 days before the Prada.
"They were not the first, and they were not the only one. Capacitive screens just happened to become affordable at the time."
Certainly.
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!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Holy shit man, I'm amazed at how you still haven't been locked up. I'd love to get a full biography of yours, as well as a post compilation. You're so messed up I sometimes feel sorry for you...
I'll be taking MY meds & other neuronial dosages TONIGHT.
... apk
APK
P.S.=> My wife died.
Screw the biography. Let's see the post-mortem!
Since the "best you've got" is WEAK attempts @ "impersonating me". Thanks for proving my point, along with projecting your own "issues". Still - I'm going to have fun with you on this, & here goes:
* The funniest part's seeing so many folks on this article's pages cutting you fools from arstechnica to shreds! E.G.-> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4306885&cid=45053371
(Then the same unidentified ac trollings following those posts, complete with downmods of their posts too, just like mine here just for telling the truth about you little weasels (in just for them telling it how it really is regarding you failures that flock in one spot called arstechnica)).
Do you arstechnica dolts *think* you "Fool Anyone"? Please... lol, look @ that post of tuppe666's + many others on this site's pages, & guess again.
Truth be told? Your low grade "intellect" makes it easy to bring you fools outta the woodwork, every single time - Truth does that with losers like yourself.
I.E.-> You're so ridiculously EASY to "get a rise out of", it's not even funny - thanks for being my little puppet on that account! I just "push your buttons" & you 'jump' on command... lol, MY command, no less & yes, by the single example of what others posted too in the link above.
APK
P.S.=> Obviously the "fine reception" (lol, NOT) of your b.s. so called "report" in this article here on /. that you've gotten here, PISSED YOU OFF... that ALONE, truly makes my day!
LMAO!
Obviously, that REALLY "gets your goats", lol, now doesn't it?
Ah - You don't *need* to answer - Your reaction says it all for me with your stale typical pattern of crap proves it for us as per usual - Same old unoriginal "you need meds" b.s., can't you even THINK of anything new? I take that back - you have to be ABLE to think, first... & arstechnicans, can't (lol). You mindless automatons don't HAVE brains!
Now, go take your OWN advice, & those "meds" you project obviously need, yourself... Go on now puny arstechnica flea: "Shoo", lmao...
... apkb
You seem to be biased. Or are you just insane? Ars didn't claim "all" manufacturers are cheats, but your beloved Samdung was on the list.
20% of the market and probably 50% of the profits
Samsung Dethrones Apple in Smartphone Profits
Apple has fallen off the profit throne.
Last quarter, Samsung Electronics made more money selling handsets than Apple for the first time.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/07/26/samsung-dethrones-apple-in-smartphone-profits/
Try again. This has been debunked: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/07/27/samsung-has-not-dethroned-apple-in-mobile-profits
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Its not Intel and not Microsoft? And Ars's does not like it?!
Stop the presses!
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
who the fuck wears a watch anymore?
my watch in the 80s had temp/altitude/pressure/waterproof/shockproof/calculator
my watch by now should be able to tell me glucose levels below the skin, chemical composition of my sweat, am i too pissed to drive?, is that water safe ?, what did i just get on my hands ?, what can i smell ? is this radioactive ? pipe/cable in that wall ? , distance to that gutter up there ?, answer a phone call ? turn over tv ?, start my car ?
crunch data with the phone in my pocket via bluetooth/wifi make it look good on the display there, e-ink/transflective display on the watch with a backlight and ego/haptic buttons, use my wrist as more of a sensor/control point than a display
They're too small to control or read, too hot, too short of battery life, too heavy, too bulky, and just too stupid of an idea. Until it can hover a 7" holographic screen above it, it's a stupid concept.
I mean, Samsung is hardly the first company to release this sort of thing. Devices like the Z1 android watch have been around for some time from China for quite some time now and there's a glut of GSM based watch phones coming from there as well.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
Indeed they aren't the first ones, there were already a few: On the general consumer market there was already the i'm Watch and a few others, and in the speciality sports market there are at least 2: The likr which sports on screen maps and there was another one I can't recall with a media player for joggers (hate them joggers, grrr).
-- 29A the number of the Beast
OR, trying to? You're proving my points all the more -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4306885&cid=45055769
* :)
APK
P.S.=> The best part about you losers from arstechnica is that's about "the best you've got" after I kicked your wannabe 'expert' asses ALL OVER THE MAP @ Windows IT Pro (guess you're not that effective once you followed me out of your private "playpen" over @ Arstechnica, eh? Not: Like I said in my initial post: You're all WEAK, & your reactions here attempting to 'impersonate me' show it all the more - thanks for proving my point!)... apk
I'll tell you right now, point-blank: It's a troll I've dusted here before on this forums (or elsewhere).
It's obvious due to the 'anonymous coward' trollings being used, after they downmoderated my initial post!
I can say that, since these reprehensibly cowardly little "trolls" KNOW that I bookmark each time I do so, just so I can TOSS IT RIGHT BACK IN THEIR FACES when they pull this crap they *think* is clever - I wonder how many times in the REAL world it's gotten their teeth blasted out?
(Still - I guarantee they do this for the reasons I said, & I keep favs/bookmarks of those I floor here on tech issues mostly, just to expose their motivations for trolling as they do, & why, always by ac posts, after downmodding my posts, & then even 'impersonating' me, or trying to).
* It doesn't take a brain to figure it out, but it's nice to see others know the game here also!
APK
P.S.=> This'd be a FAR better site if those applying moderation, good &/or bad, were identifiable (but then, the weasels that made this site expose what THEY are, in the bogus design of "hide the downmodder" way it's done currently - & I am FAR from the 1st who would like things more honest here, but it's NOT how it is due to the worms that made this place being thus, themselves (whimps & worms))... & the internet'd be a better place, without losers like "arseholetechnica" too (that goes without saying, since they're the hole where numerous losers flock together such as those I specifically noted in the 1st post here))... apk
I can't bloody believe the negativity about this kind of gadget, and in any case, it seems most people are missing the bleeding obvious.
A smartwatch would be safely attached to your wrist.
I am looking at my phone know and his screen is cracked in several places due to it falling to the floor (mercifully it is still working).
When you compare the cost of replacing a screen vs the cost of having a smartwatch the gadget becomes a very attractive proposition.
Minimizing the amount of times you need to manipulate a $500-600 small device that is just a fall away of becoming unusable will save you money in the long term.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You arstechnica fools got "knocked out" by yours truly http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4306885&cid=45053773 per the parent initial post of mine in that link to the 1st post of mine you bogusly downmodded (& it's ALL truth there no less).
Yes, & you only help prove my points noted in it all the more per my reply on your effete "retaliation" of attempting to "impersonate me" online here (trademark of arstechnica, home of the loser online, in them having done it before to myself on numerous occasions + on numerous sites) -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4306885&cid=45055769
* If that's the "Best You've Got"? You've got zero.
APK
P.S.=> You fail (& you KNOW it, I know it, as does anyone reading with 1/2 a brain also)... apk