No Love From Ars For Samsung's New Smart Watch

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No Love From Ars For Samsung's New Smart Watch

Posted by timothy on Sunday October 6, 2013 @09:23AM from the too-little-too-early dept.

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.

152 of 236 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yo dawg by ArchieBunker · 2013-10-06 09:27 · Score: 4, Funny

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
1. Re:Yo dawg by binarylarry · 2013-10-06 09:51 · Score: 2
  
  Do you think this will be available for people who are really, really, ridiculously good looking?
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
2. Re:Yo dawg by mspohr · 2013-10-06 11:38 · Score: 2
  
  Here's one:
  http://omate.com/
  Complete Android phone on your wrist... waterproof too!
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
3. Re:Yo dawg by antdude · 2013-10-06 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Ooh, nice but it seems to be lacking details like weight, battery life, etc. Also, it is brand new so I would wait for reviews and cheaper prices. :(
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
4. Re:Yo dawg by mspohr · 2013-10-06 11:53 · Score: 2
  
  The web site and the Kickstarter site have all the details...
  http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/omate/omate-truesmart-water-resistant-standalone-smartwa
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
5. Re:Yo dawg by antdude · 2013-10-06 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Perfect. I wished they had these in local stores to see and try.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
6. Re:Yo dawg by leuk_he · 2013-10-06 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  You can buy simulaor watch phones in in china.
  Where do you live?
7. Re:Yo dawg by antdude · 2013-10-06 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  USA. So I can use any phone carriers with their data and phone plans?
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
8. Re:Yo dawg by hairyfeet · 2013-10-07 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well since you want one maybe you can answer a few questions for me....why? Why would you want to pay hundreds of dollars for an itty bitty teeny tiny screen, just so you can have less features, worse battery life, and just an all around worse experience than the phone you already have in your pocket?
  It is THIS that has been bugging me ever since the whole smartwatch thing first surfaced...why? Why would you want this? if anything more and more folks aren't even wearing watches at all and are doing what i call "future meets the past" and using their phones like my great grandfather used his pocketwatch. I know that when i first pointed this out I thought about it and....I don't have a watch anymore! I don't know WHEN it happened, WHERE it happened, just somewhere along the way the battery went dead in my watch and i never replaced it. When this hit me I started paying close attention to those around me and more and more folks have done the same thing, just lost the watch along the way in favor of their smartphone.
  So I don't get why so many tech sites seem to think this will be the next big thing when we already have the smartphone, its in our pocket ready to go, and so far every smartphone, even the most basic model, does a hell of a lot more than these things do....so why? Especially why if the stupid things are gonna need to be tethered to a phone anyway why bother?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
9. Re:Yo dawg by antdude · 2013-10-07 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't badly want one, but it is something I would like to get to replace my old Casio calculator watches (Data Bank (DB) 150). I am disabled so I cannot use the phones, hold one correctly, etc. I mostly use the Internet for its online communications.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
10. Re:Yo dawg by Mike+Buddha · 2013-10-07 04:29 · Score: 2
  
  Oh yeah, that looks a little less like ass than the other one that looks like ass.
  
  --
  by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
What if Apple.. by drewsup · 2013-10-06 09:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

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...
1. Re: What if Apple.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 09:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Excellent point. Apple hints, companies shoot their wad, consumers are "yawn", Apple learns from consumer reaction, releases killer product, samsung pays for Apple's consumer research, silly samsung!
2. Re:What if Apple.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 11:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What you are suggesting--creating something completely new out of thin air--is "invention," not "innovation." There is a reason why we use two different words to describe these concepts.
3. Re: What if Apple.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 11:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "When did Apple ever innovate? "
  Please learn the difference between innovation and invention.
  And FYI : Apple owns many many thousands of patents.
  "They didn't invent the concept of the PC"
  Oh quite the opposite. They did exactly that. The Apple ][ was the very first PC. What you think of a PC was scrambled together by IBM with leftovers in a hurry when they saw the wild success of the Apple ][.
  Apple ][ was released in 1977. 3 years before the IBM PC.
  ", nor did they invent the GUI. "
  They did indeed invent the modern, working GUI.
  The concept they bought from Xerox was not completely developed and lacked many key features. It was not really usable.
  The first usable GUI computer was indeed the Macintosh in 1984 when all others used CLI.
  "They didn't invent the portable music player (those had been around for years), "
  No. But they innovated A LOT. Guess why the iPod captured 77% of the market in an instant and never dropped below that level.
  Have you seen one of the train wrecks they sold back then? Like the Nomad. Plain awful. MP3 players only became mainstream due to the iPod.
  "nor did they invent the smartphone. "
  No. But just like the iPod there was a time before the iPhone and one after the iPhone. They innovated what a smartphone is. Not with a stylus and resistive display, no more plasticky keys.
  "Truth be told, Apple has never created a completely new and untested product from scratch and been successful with it. "
  Wrong. Just plain wrong. Your bias and lack of knowledge is showing.
  ". It's an admirable skill, but I wouldn't call it innovation. "
  But exactly that IS innovation. Improving a product substantially is the epitome of innovation.
  "Also, marketing. They have really good marketing."
  Their marketing budget is tiny compared to MS or Samsung.
4. Re:What if Apple.. by the_B0fh · 2013-10-06 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Filing for trademark is cheap. Apple patented a whole bunch of stuff that they never took to market.
5. Re: What if Apple.. by ozmanjusri · 2013-10-06 12:46 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Excellent point. Apple hints, companies shoot their wad, consumers are "yawn",
  Except Apple aren't king of the hill any more, they have less than 20% of the smartphone market.
  And they've repeatedly missed the boat on what smartphone buyers really want. Copy-paste, big screens, folders, notifications, etc etc.
  Of late, Apple has done well at recognising a game-changing technology (1.8" HDDs, capacitative screens etc) early and releasing a niche-defining product based on it before everyone else. They can then ride the first mover advantage into the growth phase of the category.
  That's not the situation with smart watches. There has been a steady trickle of smart watches on the market since the '80s, and I have no doubt there'll be (some) demand for a good one. But Apple be playing in a far more aware field and will have to take their chances just like anybody else.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
6. Re:What if Apple.. by neonmonk · 2013-10-06 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's still enough to create rumour & conjecture. Thereby making AC's comments false.
7. Re: What if Apple.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 13:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  " Except Apple aren't king of the hill any more, they have less than 20% of the smartphone market. "
  Which is quite irrelevant. They never had more than 20% of the smartphone marketshare. Marketshare is largely irrelevant for Apple
  The are still king of the hill in profits and of mindshare. No other phone creates that frenzy. 9 million smartphones sold in 48 hours. No one else does this.
  " And they've repeatedly missed the boat on what smartphone buyers really want. "
  Not really. Otherwise they wouldn't have sold so many of them.
  "Copy-paste,"
  Covered. And better than all others.
  " big screens"
  The phablet market is tiny despite all the noise from tech forums. According to google the phablet market is just 10%. 90% of all Androids(!) are sold with screens of 4" or less.
  ", folders, notifications, etc etc. "
  They have all of it.
8. Re: What if Apple.. by ILongForDarkness · 2013-10-06 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  20% of the market and probably 50% of the profits. They supposedly have a 40% share in the US. You don't need a majority of a market to still be the top dog. Margins matter. So does usage (which supposedly iOS users are by far dominant in the US (not sure elsewhere)) as that is what drives upselling data plans and purchases of apps in terms of profits. Android > Apple argument only works if you consider every manufacturer the same. Same argument of Mac vs PC ~10% of market but generally mid to high range systems and high to riduculous range prices so they again punch above there weight class in terms of profit. In fact according to: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/16/mac_profits_are_high_too_high.html the margins are so rich they make more money that all the rest of the PC industry as a whole.
  Smart watches in my opinion are a dumb dumb idea if they require a phone to use for data/offloading processing (which also goes for Glass). If I got a phone in my pocket how about answering the phone rather than dropping another $200 or so on another device that does the same thing but with a smaller screen and more slowly? If they really want a market make a smart watch that needs no phone and is a phone itself. Still might be a pain convincing people to use it as it would likely need to work with bluetooth headset or speaker phone as the only two options but might work for some peoples needs. Bluetooth to car audio would work well for drivers too versus people trying to balance their smart phone in a cup holder or whatever while driving.
9. Re: What if Apple.. by narcc · 2013-10-06 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  They never had more than 20% of the smartphone marketshare. Marketshare is largely irrelevant for Apple
  ...
  Otherwise they wouldn't have sold so many of them.
  What?
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
10. Re:What if Apple.. by mjwx · 2013-10-06 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Except that smart watches have been in development for years before Apple made their rumour. The Pebble Smartwatch has been out for months.
  
  But nice revisionist history.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
11. Re: What if Apple.. by ozmanjusri · 2013-10-06 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  90% of all Androids(!) are sold with screens of 4" or less.
  
  Vs
  
  Android Buyers Have an Appetite for Huge Screens
  55 percent of Android smartphones sold in the United States in Q2 2013 were equipped with screens larger than 4.5 inches in diagonal.
  http://www.statista.com/topics/840/smartphones/chart/1396/android-phone-sales-by-screen-size/
  Who should I believe?
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
12. Re: What if Apple.. by Camembert · 2013-10-06 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  Apple is quickly becoming irrelevant. Sure they sold a lot of phones but that hardly is a good measure. 1D has a lot of fans, does that mean they are musical geniuses?
  Say what you will but the general reaction to their phones was mainly 'meh'. Gone was the media hope and adolation of the years past
  Meh reaction? Just today I read in the South China Morning Post that here in HK Apple has regained the top spot from Samsung. This being said, I think that they should release a larger screen iPhone as well. Imagine one with one row and one column more icons. Personally I wouldn't want it, I don't like large phones, but many people seem to like them.
13. Re: What if Apple.. by ozmanjusri · 2013-10-06 17:54 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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/
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
14. Re: What if Apple.. by tysonedwards · 2013-10-06 17:55 · Score: 2
  
  Believe both.
  
  The first is an "everywhere, forever" statistic.
  The second is a "United States in Q2 2013" statistic.
  
  --
  Thirty four characters live here.
15. Re: What if Apple.. by ozmanjusri · 2013-10-06 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  The first is an "everywhere, forever" statistic.
  The second is a "United States in Q2 2013" statistic.
  
  Phablets are big in Asia-Pacific
  
  Large-screen phones prove hugely popular in India, China and other countries - creating challenge for Apple as it contemplates next iPhone release. "Phablets", the large-screened phones with screen sizes of between 5in and 7in diagonally, sold as well as tablets and laptops combined in the Asia-Pacific region during the second quarter, says research company IDC.
  http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/02/phablets-asia-pacific-tablets-laptops-growth
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
16. Re: What if Apple.. by catmistake · 2013-10-06 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  Except Apple aren't king of the hill any more, they have less than 20% of the smartphone market.
  Hmm... your strawman is compelling, but it is difficult to ignore that Apple is the king of the stock market by value, the most valuable brand in the world, and with more than $150B in cash and about that much in projected annual revenue, if they're not yet richer than New Zealand (GDP ~$170B), they will be soon. So even if it is perhaps arguable that they lost some specific market battle, if, the point is overshadowed by the fact that Apple decisively won the war.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
17. Re: What if Apple.. by davester666 · 2013-10-06 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  The smartphone market is rather large, so Apple can still sell lots, while also not having a large percentage of the market.
  And they only sell high-end models, unlike everyone else.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
18. Re: What if Apple.. by davester666 · 2013-10-06 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you are confusing two different numbers, namely the percentage of all androids sold worldwide with screens 4.5 inches.
  Just like worldwide, Apple has a marketshare of about 20% of smartphones, while within the US, it has about 40%.
  http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/06/apples-iphone-holds-40-share-of-us-smartphone-market
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
19. Re: What if Apple.. by narcc · 2013-10-06 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite what I meant.
  The argument was that Apple "missed the boat on what smartphone buyers really want" supported by Apple's share of the smartphone market. This was countered? first by suggesting that market share was irrelevant, which he then undercuts with his sales numbers comment. See, the only reason to cite high sales numbers comment is to imply that they hold a large portion of the market; that's why you'd make that argument against the parents claim.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
20. Re: What if Apple.. by stealth_finger · 2013-10-06 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  90% of all Androids(!) are sold with screens of 4" or less.
  Vs
  
  Android Buyers Have an Appetite for Huge Screens
  55 percent of Android smartphones sold in the United States in Q2 2013 were equipped with screens larger than 4.5 inches in diagonal.
  http://www.statista.com/topics/840/smartphones/chart/1396/android-phone-sales-by-screen-size/
  Who should I believe?
  Isn't it obvious? The random guy on slashdot is always right.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
21. Re: What if Apple.. by RaceProUK · 2013-10-06 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Gottleib Daimler and Karl Benz
  FTFY
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
22. Re:What if Apple.. by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-06 23:44 · Score: 2
  
  The rumours of Apple developing one came after everyone else started working on theirs, not before. The first ones were on Kickstarter, such as the Pebble. Then Samsung demoed a flexible OLED display and people started to speculate that it would be used for a watch or some other kind of wearable device.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
23. Re: What if Apple.. by unami · 2013-10-07 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  GottLIEB (which means "loves god" or "loved by god), not Gottleib (which would mean "god's body" or "god's loaf"
24. Re: What if Apple.. by ILongForDarkness · 2013-10-07 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  As mentioned this was debunked since Samsung's numbers were for their mobile division which includes their tablet and PC business as well as a lot of the reports comparing Apple's net profit to Samsung's operating profit. At some point Samsung probably will beat Apple since their willing to go a bit further down market than even the Apple 5c.
25. Re: What if Apple.. by dfghjk · 2013-10-07 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  "The phablet market is tiny despite all the noise from tech forums. According to google the phablet market is just 10%. 90% of all Androids(!) are sold with screens of 4" or less."
  Screen sizes larger than the iPhone are not "phablets". Yet another example of defining terms by what benefits a pro-Apple argument.
26. Re: What if Apple.. by mrchaotica · 2013-10-07 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Now that's a Smart idea!
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
27. Re: What if Apple.. by jmhobrien · 2013-10-20 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  I can't see how $150 billion in cash reserves will become irrelevant any time soon. For perspective, the cash reserves of ALL american companies combined is around $1500 billion.
  
  --
  Where is moderation: -1 False?
Is anyone surprised? by 0123456 · 2013-10-06 09:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hands up all those who've been desperately waiting for a 'smart watch' to stick on their wrist?
Yeah, thought not.
1. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Nerdfest · 2013-10-06 09:39 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I was, and bought a Pebble. Damn close to everything I'd want, and definitely worth the price. Yeah, it would be nice to have a 'smart' watch but I don't think the battery and screen tech currently exists to do it right. The Pebble as a second, low-power, always-on screen with a few controls is pretty much the best available right now.
2. Re: Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, strap on a fitbit flex and what a surprise. I was in your camp but seriously, a watch that does what a fitbit does and more, sign me up.
3. Re:Is anyone surprised? by AuMatar · 2013-10-06 10:24 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Hell, one of the advantages of even a dumb phone was that it had a clock on it. I threw out my watch the day I brought home my first cell phone. Why would I want a fragile piece of electronics on my wrist where it will just get bumped, damaged, and catch the hair on my wrists when I can keep something in my pocket? Watches are dead and good riddance.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
4. Re:Is anyone surprised? by AuMatar · 2013-10-06 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  No, because I have better things to spend my money on. I have a device that tells time on me at all times. Why pay for a second? And why pay hundreds or thousands for a "good" one when you can get one that tells time just as well for $20?
  I also don't want a BMW. I have a 12 year old Ford that still runs great (40K miles on it). I plan on keeping it for another decade unless it starts breaking down. If I had to replace it I'd be looking for reliability and cost, which aren't BMWs strong points.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
5. Re:Is anyone surprised? by patniemeyer · 2013-10-06 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  If Apple releases a smartwatch it will probably be about as much a watch as the iPhone was "just" a phone...
  I've never worn a watch in my life but I can *imagine* a wearable computer that is cool and useful enough that I might consider it... Can't you?
  Pat
6. Re:Is anyone surprised? by DanTheManMS · 2013-10-06 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  Watches are dead and good riddance.
  Personally I feel naked without my watch. It's nothing fancy, just something my parents gifted to me from Kohl's 10 years ago for around $50 I believe, but it's held up well and functions the same today as it did 10 years ago. Pulling out my smartphone and fumbling to find the button just to check the time feels clumsy to my mind. I'm a very time-oriented person so I like having that information available as easily as a quick downward flick of my eyes. Well, that and I can wear it in the shower so I can determine the exact moment that I MUST turn off the water before I'll be late to work, heh.
  
  At the same time I fully understand why people would abandon watches in favor of cell phones. I hardly ever use my dedicated GPS unit anymore because my phone is "good enough" at fulfilling those needs. In the case of telling the time and date, I still prefer to have the dedicated device for its simplicity and long-lasting battery life. To each his own, eh?
7. Re:Is anyone surprised? by byuu · 2013-10-06 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to have one with an SRS (selective repetition system) for memorizing foreign language vocabulary. A quick glance down while stopped at a red light, waiting on an elevator, standing in line at a fast food restaurant, etc. Grab a word, put it in working memory, move on. Much more convenient than pulling out a phone, unlocking it, opening up an app, then putting it back in your pocket.
  
  I'm not really interested in a mini-remote-control for my cell phone. E-mail isn't that important that I need to speed up checking it significantly, nor is it vapid enough to be consumable on a 320x320 1" screen.
8. Re:Is anyone surprised? by mspohr · 2013-10-06 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  I think people want a smart watch for the same reason they want a wrist watch... they don't want to have to keep taking the phone out of their pocket to check for messages, etc.
  How many people do you know who still use a pocket watch?
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
9. Re:Is anyone surprised? by mspohr · 2013-10-06 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of people have very expensive watches on their wrists and don't seem to worried about them getting damaged or catching hair.
  Carrying a phone in your pocket to tell the time is like carrying a pocket watch.
  Do you like pocket watches?
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
10. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Concerned+Onlooker · 2013-10-06 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Ditto for me. But I don't bother challenging people who like to believe that they are completely logical and utilitarian. You know, the function over form guys. That is, until it comes to members of the opposite sex.
  
  --
  http://www.rootstrikers.org/
11. Re:Is anyone surprised? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2013-10-06 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  I want something that connects me to the rest of the world with out requiring me to break out my phone.
  whether it's a watch, glasses, or whatever...
  Steve Jobs famously stated that there was a space between laptops and phones, and then he unveiled the iPad.
  is there a space between me and my phone? Hopefully something that doesn't require me to bring it out every now and then?
  Alternatively, we could just live lives and work jobs that don't require us to be connected 24x7, but... Until -that- sea change happens...
  Not that I'm suggesting becoming a digital hermit is a better solution mind you, there are massive advantages to having always available connectivity. But there has to be something we can do to bridge the gap between people and technology that augments life instead of getting in the way of life.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
12. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Gavagai80 · 2013-10-06 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  At least 95% of people do buy garbage quality plastic watches which they regularly lose or find eaten by the dog. Luxury watches are very popular with a small number of wealthy people, mainly as status symbols, but if you're trying to make a mass market product out of expensive watches you have to convince masses who are skeptical of that.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
13. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Guru80 · 2013-10-06 12:59 · Score: 2
  
  The last time I thought a smart watch would be the coolest thing ever was in a 70's or early 80's Star Trek or James Bond movie.
14. Re:Is anyone surprised? by narcc · 2013-10-06 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  I've seen all sorts of techno-hate on Slashdot. I've seen Microsoft hate and Apple hate, I've seen hate for countless programming languages. I've seen hate for just about every personality to make the front page. I've hated and even been hated in return!
  But now I've see it all.
  I've finally seen someone with what appears to be a pathological hatred for wrist watches.
  Now we just need a wrist watch fanboy with a persecution complex.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
15. Re:Is anyone surprised? by AuMatar · 2013-10-06 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  Over a wristwatch? Probably, except they tend to be more expensive, being a niche market. Over just using my cell? No- why carry a second thing that does a tiny subset of something else I already carry? Just another thing to lose.
  Also an advantage of the cell phone- synching time with the phone network. You never have to worry about it running out of synch, or being on the wrong timezone. Rarely a feature of a watch- even the better ones slowly go out of synch, unless you spend really huge numbers on it.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
16. Re:Is anyone surprised? by exomondo · 2013-10-06 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  The at-a-glance info is neat if it's always available (like e-ink is probably a good idea) but actually interacting with it is mostly less convenient than a phone, the tiny screen makes it awkward but worst of all you need both arms to operate it! Then there's the fact that you can't switch between hands and that you have to take it off if you want somebody to take a photo of you with it or let somebody else use it.
  I don't think the device you speak of can conveniently be a watch, maybe glasses but in that case it would need some decent way to interact with it, speech is not good enough and a touchpad on the side of your head obviously sucks too.
17. Re:Is anyone surprised? by exomondo · 2013-10-06 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  They aren't really that useful anymore, in fact I don't even bother with setting mine. It's a beautiful omega and I wear it as a piece of jewelry rather than for any utilitarian value.
18. Re:Is anyone surprised? by AuMatar · 2013-10-06 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  Hate? No. They're something that used to fill an important purpose but are no longer needed. The 21st century equivalent of buggy whips.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
19. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Camembert · 2013-10-06 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  If Apple releases a smartwatch it will probably be about as much a watch as the iPhone was "just" a phone...
  I've never worn a watch in my life but I can *imagine* a wearable computer that is cool and useful enough that I might consider it... Can't you?
  Pat
  I agree - wearable computing will become important; a smartwatch or google glass are just the first exponents. Having near invisible computer assistance everywhere you are is an attractive step forward, and it will eventually happen. Reflecting Apple's product history, I think that they will only release a smartwatch if they can do it substantially better than what is out there in the market. I am curious about smartwatch tech, but every one so far failed to impress me.
20. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Camembert · 2013-10-06 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  Very, very good idea amongst the many cynical posts here. I like to use Memrise on my iphone to (painfully slowly) learn Mandarin, and I can see the appeal of having it on my watch instead.
21. Re:Is anyone surprised? by odie5533 · 2013-10-06 19:34 · Score: 1
  
  I did the same thing when I bought my first pocket watch. Why would I want a fragile piece of electronics on my wrist where it will just get bumped, damaged, and catch the hair on my wrists when I can keep something in my pocket? Wrist watches are dead and good riddance.
22. Re:Is anyone surprised? by rainer_d · 2013-10-06 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  My watch is solar-powered and syncs with one of the most precise atomic clocks in the world. It doesn't perform any blood-test, nor does it take fitness parameters, though. When a smart-watch emerges that does the clock-thingy well, plus the aforementioned blood-test, I'll be tempted.
  
  --
  Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
23. Re:Is anyone surprised? by kinarduk · 2013-10-06 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  I've tried many 'smart' watches, Pebble is the only one that gets it right. Simple notifications coupled with a decent battery life, down to a custom and simplified OS. i'mwatch and the cuckoo just didn't cut it.
24. Re:Is anyone surprised? by gnasher719 · 2013-10-06 20:58 · Score: 1
  
  At least 95% of people do buy garbage quality plastic watches which they regularly lose or find eaten by the dog. Luxury watches are very popular with a small number of wealthy people, mainly as status symbols, but if you're trying to make a mass market product out of expensive watches you have to convince masses who are skeptical of that.
  My reasonably expensive wrist watch has gone down in price all the time, and now it's about Â£30 per year. Has been looking good for 13 years. Looks as good as new. First battery lasted 12 years. And I laugh about stupid kids spending Â£200 on "Beats" headphones, or on their latest trainers.
25. Re:Is anyone surprised? by TheRaven64 · 2013-10-06 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  My watch is on my wrist pretty much all of the time, and I can check the time with it when I have my hands full or when I'm walking in a couple of seconds. My mobile phone is in a pocket. Getting it out when I'm walking takes much longer, getting it out of my pocket is pretty much impossible if I'm carrying things in both hands, and can be difficult if I'm carrying something in one hand, depending on which hand and how easy it is to change hands. I can glance at my watch in a meeting without it being obvious that I'm checking the time, I can't pull out a phone and look at it without it being obvious that I'm not paying attention.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
26. Re:Is anyone surprised? by hairyfeet · 2013-10-07 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  I can say I've noticed the past couple of years that becoming the norm, like the pocketwatch my great grandfather carried folks just reach in their pocket and check their smartphones. Can't say as i blame 'em, I too got rid of my watch ages ago, the smartphone gives me not only the time, but the weather and notifications so I really see no need in carrying a watch anymore.
  Of course we can speak the truth here and we ALL know what this is about, when Jobs ran Apple he kept the premium price up by finding new markets for Apple to flock to and since taking the big chair all Cook has done is put new paint on the same old ideas and while the faithful will buy an iAnything if he doesn't want to end up stuck in commodity land he has NO choice but to find new markets. I honestly don't think this will work, the iPad replaced pen and paper, plenty of jobs that used to make you carry around pen and paper like medical office, warehousing, inventory, etc so plenty of uses for that and before the iPhone we were stuck with MSFT putting itty bitty start buttons on the phone so there was plenty of room for improvement but...a watch? You are talking about a form factor that is already dying and which thanks to a VERY limited amount of space will have shitty battery life and/or lousy performance.
  yeah....I just don't think this one is gonna be another iPod, sorry Apple.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
27. Re:Is anyone surprised? by AuMatar · 2013-10-07 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Trust me, we all know when you glance at your watch. It isn't nearly as subtle as you think.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
28. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Keith111 · 2013-10-07 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Same here. I wanted one badly but nothing looked promising until I saw Pebble... and they certainly delivered. Best we can do right now with our current battery tech. Maybe someone'll make an amazing smartwatch in 5 or 10 years when we get those super MIT batteries or whatever, but not yet.
29. Re:Is anyone surprised? by TheRaven64 · 2013-10-07 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on how you do it. If you have your hand on the table and you look down while you reach for your glass of water or similar, you can check subtly because everyone thinks you're looking down to look at the water glass. If you turn the wrist and look at it, then you can send a signal that someone's going on too long. It's much harder to send these subtle signals if you're looking at a mobile phone (it just looks rude to everyone in the room, not just the speaker) or a wall clock (harder to distinguish from just staring into space).
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Wearable computing... by larwe · 2013-10-06 09:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

... 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.
1. Re:Wearable computing... by xtal · 2013-10-06 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be interested in a high end watch with silent alert and biometric functions that communicated with my smartphone.
  That'd be about it.
  
  --
  ..don't panic
2. Re:Wearable computing... by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2013-10-06 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  I think a smart watch is anti-fashion to high priced jewelry watch. I think an ap that would be commonly run on them would be a display that simulates the red-led watches of old because they were also eventually became anti-fashion.
  
  --
  God spoke to me
3. Re:Wearable computing... by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2013-10-06 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  My grammar, lol, it is pretty bad here. I edited my sentences then didn't check to see if they actually formed something known as English.
  
  --
  God spoke to me
4. Re:Wearable computing... by jez9999 · 2013-10-06 10:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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"
  Believe it or not, I still wear a digital watch as well as have a smartphone. It's just quicker to glance at the time on it (which I do quite regularly) than take a few seconds taking out my smartphone from a pocket that also has keys in it.
  I quite like the simplicity of the watch, though; a smartwatch kind of defeats the point.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
5. Re:Wearable computing... by Austrian+Anarchy · 2013-10-06 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Seiko TV watch, 1982 vintage. However, the receiver was external. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGzFIVYPDYw
  
  --
  Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
6. Re:Wearable computing... by bosef1 · 2013-10-06 11:21 · Score: 2
  
  As I seem to recall from back when the History Channel showed history, the original function of the "wrist watch" was jewelry, especially for ladies. Men wore pocket watches, and wrist watches were women's bracelets with a built-in timepiece. From what I remember, wrist watches weren't really appropriate fashion items for men until World War 1, when mass troop coordination required everyone to have an easily accessible timepiece, and wrist-watches fit the bill. So having the wrist watch return the status of jewelry isn't too unprecedented.
  I find I prefer to wear a pocket watch at the office. I'm not a good typist, and wearing a wrist-watch bothers me when I use a keyboard. The pocket watch lets me have a convenient timepiece that stays in my pants. Plus you can get some really fancy pocket watches.
7. Re:Wearable computing... by hey! · 2013-10-06 11:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I disagree. It's lot quicker and easier to glance at my watch than it is to dig my smartphone out of my pocket and wake up the screen. For that matter living in New England, when it's winter I've got to figure out which pocket the phone's in.
  What having a phone with you means is that it's no longer *compulsory* to have a watch for telling time. A watch is still a heck of a lot more convenient than a phone. I think that a phone companion watch that did caller id and notified me of incoming messages and upcoming appointments would be awesome, provided that it could go a couple days between charges. The Samsung device, I think, is a bit over an overreach; it tries to do too much and does some of it not so well.
  I do agree that people aren't wearing watches as much as they used to. My daughter carries a pocket watch. One day at school she popped it open to check the time, and a girl asked, "What's that?"
  "A pocket watch," daughter answers.
  "What does it do?" the girl asks.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
8. Re:Wearable computing... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-10-06 11:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Also, it's arguable that Samsung's stab at 'Smart Watch' utterly bungles the separation of labor in ways that make the result far less compelling than it could be(which, for the reasons you describe, is still somewhat limited).
  
  We have 'wearable computing', even your $100 'eh, some kind of android phone' that you get with prepaid plans is quite wearable, and pretty punchy computationally. Until we have the nigh-miraculuous/power density enough to blow your hand off battery tech to get the whole phone onto your wrist, that's where the compute power is going to have to live(there are a few novelty 'dumbphone-on-wrist' watches you can get, and they do work; but the only reason they get reasonable-ish battery life is because they are nth-generation minimalist GSM implementations cut to the bone).
  
  Instead of recognizing this, and building just enough intelligence to save bandwidth by crunching and formatting messages (rather than using a less power efficient, relatively high speed, RF link to drive a 'dumb' framebuffer style screen or a relatively dumb RFB/VNC style screen), which would actually be doable in a smaller watch, or one with better battery life, or both, they dumped an entire cellphone in the thing, just one without the 'phone' part, or enough power to make Android pleasant, or enough battery to get good runtimes... Brilliant.
  
  Ironically, Microsoft is probably best positioned (technologically, based on past behavior I'll give them a 90+ percent chance of either not doing it or fucking it up really badly) to do the 'smart watch'+ cellphone combo properly. They've been thinking about peripheral screens connected to more qualified systems since at least 'Windows Sideshow' debuted with Vista back in the day (uptake, approximately zero...) and they also have, for actual application support on the resource constrained peripheral devices, all the work they've done on .NET. .NET Micro runs on next to no resources (no 8-bit stuff; but the memory footprint is under 512k and the target architecture is ARM microcontrollers). .NET Compact is more capable; and of intermediate size, and then full .NET. All use the CLR, and run CIL bytecode applications, all are either quite similar to one another or subsets of one another, and so on.
  
  Again, MS being MS, they'll fuck this one up in some baffling fashion; but that's a very strong (relative to other companies' portfolios) set of options for building 'smart watch' type devices. Want a really watch-like smartwatch, possibly with adequate battery life? A .NET Micro device will run on just about the feeblest 32-bit ARM microcontrollers you can buy, and would support 'faces' and notification-processing/display engines on the CLR, with WCF-based communication with the handset. Want something a bit punchier? Compact is that, if you can satisfy its hardware requirements.
  
  Outside of that, you have Samsung's rather pitiful 'take an entire Android phone and gimp it until it fits on your wrist' approach, or Pebble's 'do something totally custom; but more reasonable on resources, and provide a decently sane mechanism for developers to use when approaching your totally custom thing'.
9. Re:Wearable computing... by dinfinity · 2013-10-06 11:29 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  No, it hasn't and no, it isn't.
  Rotating your arm slightly is still much easier than pulling something out of your pants, unlocking/waking it and putting it back in again. I never do the latter to check the time. Because I have a fucking watch.
  In addition to a wrist being a much more accessible location, the idea of something wearable instead of something you carry is that you don't have to worry about losing it or where to put it. Tell me: do you go swimming with your cell phone? Even if it was water proof, you very probably wouldn't.
  Wearable personal computing devices make complete sense. The current implementations are just not very good.
10. Re:Wearable computing... by mspohr · 2013-10-06 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  The wrist watch was created because it was a pain to keep taking your pocket watch out to check the time.
  We've regressed... now we have to take our phones out of our pockets to check the time.
  Hence, the smart watch.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
11. Re:Wearable computing... by mspohr · 2013-10-06 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Here's one which is waterproof and a complete Android phone. You can go swimming with it.
  http://omate.com/
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
12. Re:Wearable computing... by ColdWetDog · 2013-10-06 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Again, MS being MS, they'll fuck this one up in some baffling fashion;
  So true. So sad.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
13. Re:Wearable computing... by LinuxIsGarbage · 2013-10-06 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  As I seem to recall from back when the History Channel showed history, the original function of the "wrist watch" was jewelry, especially for ladies. Men wore pocket watches, and wrist watches were women's bracelets with a built-in timepiece. From what I remember, wrist watches weren't really appropriate fashion items for men until World War 1, when mass troop coordination required everyone to have an easily accessible timepiece, and wrist-watches fit the bill. So having the wrist watch return the status of jewelry isn't too unprecedented.
  I find I prefer to wear a pocket watch at the office. I'm not a good typist, and wearing a wrist-watch bothers me when I use a keyboard. The pocket watch lets me have a convenient timepiece that stays in my pants. Plus you can get some really fancy pocket watches.
  Is that a Galaxy Note 3 pocket watch in your pants, or are you just really excited to see me?
14. Re:Wearable computing... by neonmonk · 2013-10-06 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  It's a shame that it's really ugly.
15. Re:Wearable computing... by larwe · 2013-10-06 14:08 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, we've regressed to an era where we have to pull something out of our pockets to check the time. The thing is, the *simple* and *cost effective* answer to that is a $1 digital wristwatch. Wrist mounted timepieces just aren't as popular as they once were. The $300 smartwatch (which will cease to function as soon as you upgrade to a different brand of phone) is a ludicrous proposed solution to the problem "I don't want to have to reach into my pocket to check the time".
16. Re:Wearable computing... by bosef1 · 2013-10-06 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh, that's the problem... I'd been telling everyone it had a ten-inch screen.
17. Re:Wearable computing... by larwe · 2013-10-06 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  You can make this argument all day long, and while it seems to make sense, it doesn't address the reality that the percentage of people who buy and wear wristwatches is falling (here's a fun article http://www.bbb.org/blog/2012/05/has-your-cell-phone-killed-your-watch/ ). I'll buy the argument that wearable computing devices simply have never been implemented well, but until you show me the killer implementation of the killer app, I'll continue to assert that the idea of pervasive wearables is a marketing wet dream, not an imminent reality. Perhaps the answer is that I don't CARE what time it is when I go swimming? BTW, just speaking for myself, when I go to the beach - which is all the time, because I live in central Florida - I take my cellphone in a ziploc bag. I even take it in the ocean briefly, so I can take cool pictures. If I have a containment failure and the phone dies, oh well... time for a new phone. I do own a couple of analog wristwatches, somewhere... they're showpieces I never wear. I also don't want a tan line on my wrist.
18. Re:Wearable computing... by AthanasiusKircher · 2013-10-06 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  Believe it or not, I still wear a digital watch as well as have a smartphone. It's just quicker to glance at the time on it (which I do quite regularly) than take a few seconds taking out my smartphone from a pocket that also has keys in it.
  I believe it, and I agree. I went for about 6 months a decade or so ago without a watch, and used my cellphone for telling time... but then for a time I was doing international traveling, and I needed a watch again. I've kept using them again ever since. They're useful.
  On the other hand, I teach college students. Wristwatches started to disappear from their wrists about a decade ago, and by 5 years ago I could walk around a large lecture hall and only see one or two. For people younger than about 30-35, the wristwatch seems pretty much dead, except as a status symbol or jewelry.
19. Re:Wearable computing... by tlhIngan · 2013-10-06 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  Wearable personal computing devices make complete sense. The current implementations are just not very good.
  Smartwatches suffer from the fact they were pretty much invented needs.
  The need for a smartwatch came from the fact that smartphones have gotten ever bigger and bigger (or as Gizmodo put it, "dick-a-geddon" came a month early - when screen sizes exceeded average penis size), they became clumsier and clumsier to use.
  Sure, a big screen is nice for videos and games - that's why people love consoles attached to their 70" HDTVs. And likewise, having a 5+" display is nice for mobile gaming and videos as well. However, it also impedes the ability to well, use it for anything other than a big-screen gameboy. Heck, the Note 3 implements a "Small Screen" mode where it reduces the screen size so youc an use it single-handedly.
  So they invent smart watches because it's a huge (literally) PITA to keep digging out this tablet just to see a text or to see if you want to answer the call. In effect, because screen sizes are so big, they need more gadgets to deal with it.
  So now you have this PITA "smartwatch" with a sub-day battery life (great, so you forget to charge it and you're hooped).
  (Important note - these flagship Androids? They make up less than 10% of the Android market - Google claims 900M Android devices, and Samsung sold 60M SGS3s, the best selling Android handset ever (all models)).
  Apple's probably working on one, and rumors have it that the 3-4 day battery life they're getting is inadequate. Hell, Qualcomm announced their smartwatch the same day as the Galaxy Gear and it not only has an always-on display, but lasts a few days.
  Right now, Apple and everyone else has to answer the question - what is it good for, that isn't a result of a self-created problem?
20. Re:Wearable computing... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2013-10-06 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  This is why I want a pebble. It's a watch with notifications for events on your smartphone.
  
  Never "Did my phone just vibrate?" check again.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
21. Re:Wearable computing... by terryk29 · 2013-10-06 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  Ever tried to use a watch in the winter? Tug glove down, pull-up wrist of coat, pull up wrist of jumper, pull up wrist of thermal underlayer, dig for watch.
  That's what the new SmartRing is for! Tells you what hour it is! Flashes when there's a message on your smartwatch, which you then check to see what's on your smartphone!
22. Re:Wearable computing... by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-06 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  Home automation has taken off, just not in the west. I think people here are extremely conservative when it comes to trying new things, especially in their homes. Look at how much resistance there is to good lighting.
  Things like automatic lights with remote control are pretty standard in Japanese homes. Remote control toilets, baths and video intercom systems are becoming popular too. Remote control air-con is particularly big right now, giving you the ability to remotely control it so that the house is nice and cool as soon as you get in door. Room occupancy sensors which can even tell what part of the room you are in so that they don't blow cold air directly at you are pretty standard too.
  Apparently western consumers find this sort of thing "confusing" and just buy the same old shit they have been buying for years. It causes me no end of frustration that it's almost impossible to buy a 21st century toilet over here, let along a quality ceiling light.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
23. Re:Wearable computing... by dinfinity · 2013-10-07 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  "Even if it was water proof, you very probably wouldn't."
24. Re:Wearable computing... by dinfinity · 2013-10-07 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's not a 'fun article'. It's drivel:
  "only 19% of American adults bought a watch in 2011. Meanwhile, the number of adults owning cell phones is at 90 percent."
  Comparing percentages of ownership and purchases is beyond retarded. I'm going to assume you are not and that the previous says enough.
  
  BTW, just speaking for myself
  Exactly.
  
  I take my cellphone in a ziploc bag. I even take it in the ocean briefly, so I can take cool pictures. If I have a containment failure and the phone dies, oh well... time for a new phone.
  That is super-fucking-convenient! How could anybody want to go about this differently??
  Finally, I concur with my AC sibling.
25. Re:Wearable computing... by dinfinity · 2013-10-07 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  So now you have this PITA "smartwatch" with a sub-day battery life (great, so you forget to charge it and you're hooped).
  This is (part of) my original point. The current implementations suck.
  Watches / wearables need to be as carefree as possible. Slap them on and forget about them until you need their functionality.
  At some point, never having to change the battery in your watch became a successful selling point: http://www.seikowatches.com/world/technology/kinetic/index.html
  There is a reason why being waterproof is another main selling point of some watches. Or highly scratch resistant sapphire glass.
  That reason can be summed up with one word: carefree.
  Imagine this: a virtually unbreakable, waterproof, light, slim smart watch that uses energy harvesting or requires charging maybe once every two weeks. I would buy the shit out of that.
  I would even if it only does notifications and tell time. Imagine being able to use it as a navigation tool. Not in your car. But walking around, or on a bicycle. Or as an NFC device to get information on products in a store. Or as a device for tracking workouts, or supplying information during running.
  You could say that a phone can do all those things too, but it can only do so in a much less convenient way. Remember belt cases for phones? For easy access?
  They looked (and look) terrible, but the simple fact that there was and is a use for them is enough to see the smartwatch as a viable product.
26. Re:Wearable computing... by mspohr · 2013-10-07 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Why not?
  I go swimming with my waterproof watch all the time.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
27. Re:Wearable computing... by dinfinity · 2013-10-07 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be so obtuse.
  I said easier. Ever tried to use a smartphone in the winter? It is not easier than 'tug glove down, [pull up three layers at once instead of doing that in an inane way to try to make your list longer], [look at watch]'.
28. Re:Wearable computing... by dinfinity · 2013-10-07 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. With your watch, which doesn't require a zipper pocket on your swimming suit (good luck with that, ladies) or constant paranoid checking whether it has slid out of your pockets. That was kind of my point.
29. Re:Wearable computing... by mspohr · 2013-10-07 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  The Omate TrueSmart is a watch which straps to your wrist. Not zipped in a pocket. Same as swimming with a regular waterproof watch.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
30. Re:Wearable computing... by dinfinity · 2013-10-07 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  My apologies. I was too lazy to click the link and assumed it would show a waterproof Android 'phone' (as in, the form factor).
  Although it looks pretty good (and rugged), it will suffer from the same issues as a lot of the other current implementations: meager battery life (I don't believe you will effectively come close to the quoted 100h) and bad readability outdoors.
Samsung Proprietary by markdavis · 2013-10-06 09:37 · Score: 2

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
1. Re:Samsung Proprietary by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-10-06 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think most consumers care about "proprietary" at all. But they do care about big and clunky, they do care about a sluggish interface, and they really don't want to charge their watch every night.
  Now, speaking only for myself... if it has to be tethered to my phone in order to function, that's a non-starter all by itself. It's not particularly onerous to pull my phone out of my pocket - there's not a whole lot more to that motion than to looking at something on my wrist.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2. Re: Samsung Proprietary by anthonyondre · 2013-10-06 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Apple can do the proprietary ecosystem thing because they are the world's #1 brand name. Samsung is just another electronics company running somebody else's operating system and somebody else's apps. Samsung: "we strap other people's sh*t together and modify it so it's mo longer open!"
3. Re:Samsung Proprietary by guises · 2013-10-06 10:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Galaxy Gear actually exists. You can criticize it, fine, but you can't come along with a reference to a Kickstarter project and say, "I wish the Galaxy Gear was more like this one - imaginary."
4. Re:Samsung Proprietary by DanTheManMS · 2013-10-06 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, just wanted to say thanks for linking to the Omate. I've actually never heard of it before, and it seems really intriguing (I've spent the past hour reading the wiki and browsing the forums). I think I'll hold off for a month to see if it does manage to become Google Play certified, but it's definitely on my radar now.
  
  The one common complaint I see about it is the screen resolution only being 240x240 versus the 320x320 of the Galaxy Gear. Admittedly most Android apps aren't scalable down to that small of a resolution, but I want to point out that you can do some amazing stuff with that resolution if given the chance. Using classic videogames for my analogy, the Game Boy Advance only had a 240x160 resolution, the NES was 256x240, the SNES is usually 256x224... you get the idea. A lot can be done with that space if used wisely.
5. Re:Samsung Proprietary by markdavis · 2013-10-06 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  That is a fair assessment with Kickstarter stuff, although the Omate isn't really imaginary...
  They are far past concept, past design, past prototyping, past beta, have apps already up, and are in pre-production and with an over one MILLION dollar project. Of course, something might happen, and it could be a total crapwad when it comes out. But there are lots of videos and photos and information on their sites to show it is not imaginary and what you can see simply blows the doors off everything out there.
6. Re:Samsung Proprietary by Nerdfest · 2013-10-06 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  I care far more about the proprietary nature of the Galaxy Gear than how it looks, or whether it's a stand-alone phone, and I would guess a decent percentage of others to as well. If I have an HTC or LG phone and was interested in this I'd be out of luck. It's a pretty arrogant or stupid move on Samsung's part.
Missing the point, folks. It's not for you. by Frosty+Piss · 2013-10-06 09:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Missing the point, folks. It's not for you. by the_B0fh · 2013-10-06 09:43 · Score: 2
  
  That piece of garbage is jewelry? *puke*
  You're just taking a piss on this aren't you?
2. Re:Missing the point, folks. It's not for you. by binarylarry · 2013-10-06 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say the exact opposite. It's not particularly nice looking.
  I'm interested in a device with this form factor, mainly for exercise purposes. But sadly Samsung hasn't included any of the popular fitness apps with the watch, opting to write their own crappy imitation that no one will use. :(
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
3. Re:Missing the point, folks. It's not for you. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  other than how to fleas money from rich yups
  YEAH LIKE EDUCASHUN.
  
  I dunno if I need skool in my 'merika.
4. Re:Missing the point, folks. It's not for you. by whisper_jeff · 2013-10-06 13:50 · Score: 2
  
  Folks, like many expensive watches, this is a fashion item...
  You clearly haven't seen the watch if you think it's a fashion item. It would have been ugly had it come out in the mid-90's. In 2013, it's downright embarrassing. There's nothing, what-so-ever fashionable about the Samsung Gear. And, for the love of gawd, please don't compare it to a Rolex which actually is a fashionable piece of jewelry.
5. Re:Missing the point, folks. It's not for you. by subreality · 2013-10-06 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's not particularly nice looking.
  A lot of jewelry is worn as a display of affluence, not beauty.
First ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 09:43 · Score: 1

In the article he says that Samsung are the first - what about Sony Smartwatch 2? Seems like it was out before Samsung
1. Re:First ? by nurb432 · 2013-10-06 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  And tons of generic Chinese ones for several years, that are a *complete* system, not tied to a phone..
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:FIRST! by Samantha+Wright · 2013-10-06 09:48 · Score: 2

Of course, it's wrong.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
This Mike Royko Classic Never Goes Out of Style by Austrian+Anarchy · 2013-10-06 09:56 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Time to get ticked off by Mike Royko
Rolex wearer vs. Mike Royko's Casio Databank.

--
Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
no love for Ars by Gravis+Zero · 2013-10-06 10:00 · Score: 1

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. Re:no love for Ars by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think there are some things to be expected in a watch-like device. My non-smart watch lasts 12 months. Around 20 hours is ridiculous for a device that's slightly smarter. It's another device to charge along with your smartphone.
2. Re:no love for Ars by Zumbs · 2013-10-06 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for posting that link. I looked all over TFA to get an estimated battery time, and, strangely, found nothing. I would find that a pretty important piece of information when it comes to wearable computing.
  
  --
  The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
3. Re:no love for Ars by DanTheManMS · 2013-10-06 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  The faster you drive, the more gas you burn.
4. Re:no love for Ars by the_B0fh · 2013-10-06 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, what about the reviewer who couldn't get the camera app to start, at the end of the launch party, because the battery was down?
  20 hours seems a bit far fetched. Wonder what other reviews say.
5. Re:no love for Ars by the_B0fh · 2013-10-06 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Could it be that other reviewers couldn't even get it to last that long? Other reviews say 5 hours. Another one claimed that during the launch, the camera app wouldn't even start at the end of the launch presentation because the battery was dead.
6. Re:no love for Ars by 0123456 · 2013-10-06 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Presumably, that's 20 hours if you don't actually use it to do anything.
  I'd looked for battery life in the article too, since it was inevitably going to be something retarded that would require you to recharge the damn thing every day. Having to recharge a phone every couple of weeks is annoying enough.
7. Re:no love for Ars by Gavagai80 · 2013-10-06 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  How does a non-smart watch only get 12 months battery life? My $5 non-smart watch is about 15 years old and still going (I never wear it, but it's still on).
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
I know why... by Lumpy · 2013-10-06 10:06 · Score: 1

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.
Innovative Samsung by Trogre · 2013-10-06 10:08 · Score: 1

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
Re:Ars Apple bias by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 10:15 · Score: 1

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.
the size of a normal watch? by edxwelch · 2013-10-06 10:16 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:the size of a normal watch? by Misagon · 2013-10-06 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Much thicker than my digital Casio, for sure... but it is about the same thickness as many analogue and mechanical watches from Tissot and more expensive brands.
  
  --
  "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Watch ! What is it good for ? by obarthelemy · 2013-10-06 10:28 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Watch ! What is it good for ? by Zumbs · 2013-10-06 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Give it a few years, then the foldable screens will arrive, giving you the convenience of a wrist watch along with the smartphone sized screen.
  
  --
  The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
iWatch by thestudio_bob · 2013-10-06 10:29 · Score: 2

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 /.
1. Re:iWatch by AuMatar · 2013-10-06 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  TV product? You mean the already existing (and nobody much buying) AppleTV?
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
2. Re:iWatch by thestudio_bob · 2013-10-06 11:15 · Score: 2
  
  Have you been living under a rock? You seriously haven't heard any of the gazillion rumors about Apple's rumored secret TV project they've been working on. And no, not the (Even Apple calls it a hobby) AppleTV.
  
  --
  The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
3. Re:iWatch by ToastedRhino · 2013-10-06 11:17 · Score: 2
  
  You're gonna have to define "nobody much." Five million sold in 2012 seems like quite a few, especially when compared to the number of set top boxes everyone else has announced selling. Would be interesting to see Chromecast number, though. If Google would release them, of course.
4. Re:iWatch by gnasher719 · 2013-10-06 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  TV product? You mean the already existing (and nobody much buying) AppleTV?
  In the last quarters, more people bought Apple TV than Xbox 360. It's a tiny part of Apple, but many companies have less annual revenue than Apple TV.
WTF? by handleym99 · 2013-10-06 11:08 · Score: 2

"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.
Ars isn't alone by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-06 11:36 · Score: 1

David Pogue called it a "human interface train wreck. All of it."
Re:Ars Apple bias by the_B0fh · 2013-10-06 12:14 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Ars Apple bias by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2013-10-06 13:21 · Score: 3, Informative

The Verge thought it was shit too

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Terminology by SuperKendall · 2013-10-06 15:04 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:Terminology by Camembert · 2013-10-06 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, those of us who have moved beyond watches have a term for them. It is "Idiot".
  You sure are judgemental about other people. I don't mind if other people prefer to have only a phone to check the time. Similarly I like a nice mechanical watch, it's an interesting blend of craft, technology and art.
Samsung more profitable than Apple? Debunked. by rsborg · 2013-10-06 18:20 · Score: 5, Informative

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
1. Re:Samsung more profitable than Apple? Debunked. by anethema · 2013-10-07 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ignore the Ad Hominem and look at their reasoning. It is clear and well laid out.
  
  --
  
  It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
2. Re:Samsung more profitable than Apple? Debunked. by NeutronCowboy · 2013-10-07 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  It used to be that it was blatantly obvious that Apple was making ridiculous profits on smartphones, and everyone else was trying to figure out how they do it. Don't mistake a point in time with a trend.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Really?! by yoshi_mon · 2013-10-06 18:42 · Score: 2

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!
saw this coming by slashmydots · 2013-10-07 01:56 · Score: 1

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.
How does it compare to existing SmartWatches? by logicassasin · 2013-10-07 04:09 · Score: 1

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.
Re:how retro... by rwa2 · 2013-10-07 07:09 · Score: 1

Nerds who like the occasional attention from the cool hipster kids who'll stumble over and ask, "dude, what time is it?"
Not first :P by Optali · 2013-10-07 22:54 · Score: 1

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
Most obvious feature. by jotaeleemeese · 2013-10-09 22:20 · Score: 1

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.