Slashdot Mirror
Android Wear Is Getting Killed, and It's All Qualcomm's Fault (arstechnica.com)
The death of Android Wear is all Qualcomm's fault, largely due to the fact that the company "has a monopoly on smartwatch chips and doesn't seem interested in making any smartwatch chips," writes Ars Technica's Ron Amadeo. This weekend marks the second birthday of Qualcomm's Snapdragon Wear 2100 SoC, which was announced in February 2016 and is the "least awful smartwatch SoC you can use in an Android Wear device." Since Qualcomm skipped out on an upgrade last year, and it doesn't seem like we'll get a new smartwatch chip any time soon, the entire Android Wear market will continue to suffer. From the report: In a healthy SoC market, this would be fine. Qualcomm would ignore the smartwatch SoC market, make very little money, and all the Android Wear OEMs would buy their SoCs from a chip vendor that was addressing smartwatch demand with a quality chip. The problem is, the SoC market isn't healthy at all. Qualcomm has a monopoly on smartwatch chips and doesn't seem interested in making any smartwatch chips. For companies like Google, LG, Huawei, Motorola, and Asus, it is absolutely crippling. There are literally zero other options in a reasonable price range (although we'd like to give a shoutout to the $1,600 Intel Atom-equipped Tag Heuer Connected Modular 45), so companies either keep shipping two-year-old Qualcomm chips or stop building smartwatches. Android Wear is not a perfect smartwatch operating system, but the primary problem with Android Wear watches is the hardware, like size, design (which is closely related to size), speed, and battery life. All of these are primarily influenced by the SoC, and there hasn't been a new option for OEMs since 2016. There are only so many ways you can wrap a screen, battery, and body around an SoC, so Android smartwatch hardware has totally stagnated. To make matters worse, the Wear 2100 wasn't even a good chip when it was new.
So are regular non-smart watches, designer jeans, jewelry, makeup, a Corvette, and any other luxury you care to name. What is your point? People like what they like.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
but I think you may have reversed the cause and effect here. It may be that Qualcomm isn't doing anything because the market isn't there. Because, honestly, most people don't care about smartwatches.
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
Two reasons:
1. The Qualcom chip is based on an ARM core. ARM don't make chips, they license their IP, etc to manufacturers. For example, the ARM-based CPU in the Raspberry Pi is made by Broadcom.
2. Try running your Pi on a battery the size that will fit in a watch, and see how long it lasts.
This sig left unintentionally blank.
The reason Qualcomm doesn't give a flying fuck about smart watches is because no one is buying them.
If google etc wanted one so badly they could order custom designs, or make their own.
They is no money in that market.
Apple made $1.6B in the last quarter on their watches. The segment "Apple wearables" is equivalent to a Fortune-500 company in its own right
From: https://qz.com/973920/apple-aa...
There was a steady increase in the unit’s sales in the first year the Watch was on sale, rising from $1.7 billion at the start of the year to $4.35 billion by the end. Other products cooled off in 2015, but saw another strong holiday quarter. This time, the business unit generated $2.87 billion, a jump of about 30% over the same quarter last year, but still relatively small compared with even Apple’s other non-iPhone businesses. Even so, Cook said its wearables business, which he defined as the Apple Watch, AirPods, and Beats headphones, was comparable to the size of a Fortune 500 company.
Sure, it's no iPhone-X, but it's hardly buttons either. My ole gran used to have a saying "look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves", and the same applies writ large here.
Physicists get Hadrons!
I don't get it either. How can you have a monopoly on something that you're not making? Either they are making them and have a monopoly, or they aren't making them and don't have a monopoly and the market is open for someone else to come in and make them.
If a previous single-source provider decides to get out of the market and no one else even wants to enter it after that, that's simply because there is no market. Which is almost the opposite of monopoly.
Are Slashdot editors trained to pick the stories that make the least sense on their face in order to simply create controversy and get comments? Clickbait for commenters. Damn. Why am I doing this?
"Literally useless" is a stretch, although close. Overpriced bling would be more accurate.
The summary claims " the primary problem with Android Wear watches is the hardware, like size, design (which is closely related to size), speed, and battery life." Nope. The primary problem is lack of demand. If they were selling like hotcakes, Qualcomm would be investing in new chips.
Heck, Apple is so embarrassed by their smartwatch sales numbers that they refuse to break them out separately.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The "Android Smartwatch" market isn't dead because Qualcom hasn't released a new suitable SoC - rather, Qualcom hasn't made a new SoC because the smartwatch market is dead.
The smartwatch was always going to be a niche offering, and primarily of interest to a geek market (iFans not withstanding). Adding health monitoring was a good step to expand the niche, but even then these are not devices that lend themselves to an upgrade cycle like phones (once again, iFans not withstanding).
For example, I own an original (Kickstarter) Pebble, and the core functions of caller ID, SMS/email notification and controlling music playback are great, but I don't care about health monitoring, so I haven't felt a compelling need to buy a another smartwatch to do the same things in a larger and less comfortable form factor.
So, the volumes and demand are not there for Qualcom to be able to return a profit on the investment in R&D resources and production costs for an updated SoC.
Oh, and while I'm here, I'd just like to add "FUCK FITBIT" for screwing Pebble owners over...
This sig left unintentionally blank.
Apple made $1.6B in the last quarter on their watches.
The link does not say that. "Apple wearables" includes AirPod (a necessity if you have an iPhone without a jack) and Beats headphones (which I didn't even know that Apple owned because I don't give a shit).
I think people don't care about the smartwatch because it is still a glorified watch instead of what it should be. A leap in tech is needed to make it what it should be though Apple is nearing the ballpark. If Android Wear matched Apple tech, we'd be within a generation or two of the critical tech mass for smartwatches.
I'd like for it to have full-time EKG as opposed to HR, SPO2, body temperature sensor, blood sugar from sweat for the diabetics out there, a display at least as large as the ionic, Google Assistant, different vibration patterns for different reminders, LTE, WiFi, android apps, accurate GPS augmented by WiFi and accelerometers to get very accurate locations, speaker, mic, bluetooth, etc.
I'd then have everything I need in one place and could eliminate the bulky smartphone. I hate having things in pockets or on my belt. This is why it isn't being pushed. Ultimately, it could replace the more lucrative smartphone.
Frankly, I'm not sure I need the watch function though the computer has to have it.
Samsung and Apple are selling far more watches than Android Wear. Both make the chips in their watches. Samsung is the other big ARM player in the Phone Market, but in this case their watch chip isn't designed to support Android Wear, so of course nobody is using it. Mediatek was also supposedly working on releasing a chip, but it never panned out (probably because the Android Wear market never happened.)
I'm not sure if your trolling or not, but smart watches have plenty of uses. Such as being able to look at notifications without having to pull out your phone, which sometimes might be unacceptable, like in a meeting. I use my smart watch as a second authentication device for my smart home, when someone puts in my door code, the system looks to see if my watch is in range, if not, doesn't open. Additionally I use my smart watch to monitor my heart rate and for someone with a heart condition, it's useful.
So while you may find this tech useless, doesn't mean the entire world does.
You are an idiot. My smartwatch allows me to safely send and receive messages at a stop light on my motorcycle. That alone is worth what I paid for it.
I like that. *I* need to read...
From the same link: "Analyst Gene Munster said the Apple Watch represents just 3 percent of Apple's revenue, which would equal $1.6 billion during the quarter"
They have not undershot estimates - the watch has posted 50% increases in sales for 3 quarters running. I don't know of many products that do that.
And you're still ignoring the point I was making. Just on its own, the watch is the equivalent of a Fortune-500 company. Your original statement was "They (sic) is no money in that market". It is *you*, sir, who are wrong; in every respect.
Physicists get Hadrons!
so companies either keep shipping two-year-old Qualcomm chips or stop building smartwatches
When my smartwatch had its 2nd birthday, its hands flipped to "time to" and "get a new smartwatch". I promptly heaved it at the backboard adorning my dustbin, scoring 3 points, and gleefully preordered a new shiny smartwatch. After camping out in the cold and snow for 12 hours, I was first in line to be told that it would be released in the summer, as clearly indicated on the website. I still await this new smartwatch, but timepieces wait for no man. /s
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
This is why Slashdot comment section is fucking aids. The comments here are "durr, I don't even use it, who cares?" while the comments on reddit actually add meaningful discussion. Believe it or not, you might be technologically inept and don't care about "new fangled tech" but there are plenty of people out there who use a smartwatch and like the technology.
Heck, Apple is so embarrassed by their smartwatch sales numbers
I find that hard to believe. Horace Dedieu of Asymco estimates that Apple is now the biggest watchmaker in the world, overtaking Rolex during the last quarter of 2017.
http://www.asymco.com/2017/09/...
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
>""Smart" watches don't last even a whole day."
Really? My now old Moto 360.2 does- in fact, it lasts over TWO days. And I certainly don't wear it to bed, it goes on the charger at that point (and is fully charged quickly, often before I am even asleep).
My watch easily outlasts any phone charge... I don't wear that to bed, either.. And the Moto 360.2 display is on ALL THE TIME.
Sure, there are issues with smart watches, but battery really isn't one of them. Size/weight is probably my biggest complaint.
Wow, psycho much? I'm sorry you wren't quick enough to get that reply into the correct thread, but seriously, let it go. You want to focus on the minor point (the spoons) but not the major point (the guns you think should be openly available), making it clear you don't want an actual discussion on this matter. And now you're following me to other topics to go on about it? My friend, you have no argument; that is why you resort to these tactics.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.