but...Tizen?
Samsung Gear S: Quick, LAUNCH IT – before Apple straps on iWatch
Samsung's Gear S appears to have pipped Apple's iWatch to the post. The South Korean firm today announced the release of a wearable smartwatch capable of making phone calls... and turning weedy wrists into computing powerhouses. The Samsung Gear S comes complete with 3G, a two inch curved Super AMOLED display and as well as …
COMMENTS
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 15:21 GMT DrXym
"but...Tizen?"
A better question - why should it even matter?
If the watch communicated with other devices using open protocols then it shouldn't matter a damn what the watch or the other device was running.
But Google, Apple, Samsung et al all want to smart watches to tether to their phone operating systems and their services. So now the "smart" watch is just a dumb terminal onto a specific brand of phone or phone OS.
And that's on top of other problems these devices have like displays which have to turn off to conserve power.
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 11:06 GMT Ian K
"a battery life of up to two days"
If that's the best they can do for battery life then what's also needed is wireless charging plus a family of chargers that are built into everyday items you tend to have your watch hand next to. Mouse mats, steering wheels, that sort of thing.
Of course, Apple's probably patented that idea already...
-
-
Friday 29th August 2014 10:36 GMT James Micallef
Re: "a battery life of up to two days"
"Why not charge as you move using Seiko Kinetic or Citizen Eco-Drive?"
Because a Seiko Kinetic or Citizen Eco-Drive uses much less power than a 'smart' watch. By at least an order of magnitude and maybe even 2 orders. WiFi and colour display are both hogs for battery life.
-
Tuesday 2nd September 2014 21:40 GMT BillG
Re: "a battery life of up to two days"
These first wearables use off the shelf semiconductors that do more than needed and so draw more power. ***IF*** these devices become popular, custom chips designed specifically for wearables will be made with the proper functionality and longer battery life.
-
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 11:18 GMT dotdavid
Not sure why you need a SIM in a smartwatch. Since most of us carry a phone around anyway (wouldn't like to, say, read El Reg on a tiny watch screen), why can't it just use the data connection of that phone like other smartwatches do? And (inspector gadget aside) is anyone really going to talk to their watch through a phone call?
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 11:29 GMT James 100
From the "3G call" and "Bluetooth call", I'm guessing it can be used to make phone calls using a Bluetooth headset. Combine that with the ability to read email, I might actually find this a useful alternative to carrying a smartphone everywhere ... I could carry a tablet instead, for example.
A two day battery life for a wrist-mounted smartphone doesn't seem so bad: just charge it each night, like most of us do with regular smartphones now.
I'll keep an eye on this, anyway: it could well be good for most of the things I use my phone for now, with a tablet better suited for the rest anyway. Yes, writing an email on it would be silly - but really, so's trying to write one on a phone, IMO, the keyboard really isn't big enough in either case.
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 13:07 GMT Joe 48
I had a gear 2 for a week and although I'd never talk to it walking down the street it worked really well in the car. Easily on par with the built in car system.
Tizen was limited, and its questionable how long Samsung will keep pushing it, but at the moment its still more feature rich than Google wear imo.
I don't get everyone harping on about batteries. If it doesn't work for you charging every day they buy a regular watch. Its like certain phone haters complaining about the lack of SD card slots. If thats an issue find another device that has those features!
Wearable tech is here to stay imo. I'm looking forward to some better designs.
-
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 11:18 GMT Pen-y-gors
Battery life
To be honest, the important thing is that it's more than 24 hours - which means that the charger is on the bedside table, next to the smarrtphone charger. When you have a wear-all-day device that runs out in less than a day (Glass?) then you have a major useability problem.
Still can't really see why most normal people would want one though.
-
Friday 29th August 2014 15:34 GMT Danny 14
Re: Battery life
I didn't see wireless charging built in though. Would have made sense for a watch to have wireless charging. Not sure on the range of wireless charging either but if you could get a few inches then a wireless mat at a desk might be good too.
Seems like you could use a watch for your phone and a tablet for other duties if you so wished.
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 11:26 GMT Charlie Clark
Battery life
which is pretty measly considering that real watches last months
Yes, but how many of them have screens and radios? In that case 2 days is pretty damn good assuming the screen is always on. Might be nice to have one that supports motion-based charging (like my Seiko does) but you probably need some serious wrist action for enough charge!
Down the road I can see solar cells embedded in the screen being used to boost battery life.
Of all of the watches like this I've seen so far this looks by far the best. Still don't think I'll be getting one, though.
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 11:29 GMT Tsung
Time on my phone, time on clock at work, time on my computer screen. I haven't bothered wearing a watch for many years. Nowadays, watches are mostly novelty fashion item. Couldn't really see a need for this one (or the apple one if it exists).
Maybe if the watch can monitor for medical conditions and notify emergency services if needed. (eg. the wearer is having a heart attack, or stroke) it might be worthwhile. I certainly wouldn't wear an expensive watch for exercise.
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 12:36 GMT John Robson
" I certainly wouldn't wear an expensive watch for exercise."
Iff it can do standalone navigation (as per OSMand for example) then I would -more convenient than a Garmin or similar. For that matter the BT4 would pick up a cadence sensor and the watch does HR itself. It would be a nice device. I'd get one...
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 11:32 GMT chr0m4t1c
That's some serious spin.
“Samsung is leading this exciting and rapidly developing wearable category through progressive innovation,”
Or by being one of the few manufacturers making smart watches. Take your pick.
Having a dig around, it looks like Samsung has a significant lead in the US (78% of the userbase, compared to Pebble's 18%) and a reasonable lead worldwide (where the figures are 34% and 6%). But that's from a total userbase of three million, which isn't a lot of people when you consider the potential market and the fact that the major competitors (lets say Motorola, LG and Apple) haven't entered the market yet. If any one of them ships a product that sells well, Samsung could be quickly overhauled.
“The Samsung Gear S redefines the idea of the smart wearable and the culture of mobile communication."
I'm not seeing anything that looks like a redefinition in the specifications. Anyone care to elaborate?
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 13:00 GMT ElReg!comments!Pierre
Re: That's some serious spin.
> Anyone care to elaborate?
Unless I've missed something, all the "smart" watches now are just dumb extentions to a smartphone. This one is an autonomous device. That's a pretty big difference. Both have 2 wheels but a light trailer is not the same thing as a motorbike.
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 11:41 GMT IHateWearingATie
Getting there with the looks...
... from the pics in the article.
I don't want a black slab like the LG one recently released. Something that looks like a watch and can show me the time and notifications from my phone (and maybe so some of that new fangled step counting or whatever) is good enough.
Hopefully the iWatch will show Samsung et al how to really do it, so they pull their finger out. I've an Android phone, so need someone other than Apple to create a watch that i want.
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 12:01 GMT Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese
Battery life
While I agree that 2 days battery life is p***-poor for a watch, this isn't really a watch - it's a miniature smartphone.
Thinking of it like that, a 2 day life expectancy for a tiny battery is actually quite impressive - probably longer than I can expect from the (much larger) standard battery in my smartphone in normal use.
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 12:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
This seems to be a complete phone, not just a smartwatch
Given that this thing has GSM specs it seems to be more than a smartwatch - it's a full phone.
In that context, a battery life of 2 days beats the bejeezes out the smartphones I have - only the old trusty Motorola v3i I still have goes further with one charge..
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 16:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: This seems to be a complete phone, not just a smartwatch
That battery is only 300 MaH, or about 10% of the size in a S5. During a call, the battery drain would be the same, so it will last about 10% as long as a S5 would on a call - what's that, maybe 10 hours or so? So I'd give it about an hour on a call before the battery runs dry. But I doubt they consider that an issue, because people who are on long calls or call often aren't going to be using a wristphone anyway.
-
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 20:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Kind of looks like a tiny, bent, iPhone.
Exactly my thoughts. Looks exactly how I'd expect the iWatch to look, but with a rectangular button instead of a circle... Great timing too if the announcement of the iWatch in 2 weeks is to be believed. Great way to steal their thunder and Samsung probably have a fair idea of what the iWatch will look like
-
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 12:53 GMT The elephant in the room
It's got to be a wind-up...
2 days of power for a watch was once OK, but they could be recharged in less than a minute with a bit of knob-twiddling. These smart watches look big enough to house a fairly substantial spring.
An LCD matrix or eink would surely extend the battery life. Or maybe a Swiss watchmaker will take some time out from making tasteless footballer bling and go completely steampunk with a micro-mechanical display!
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 16:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Two days is not enough
You carry your phone with you, so you can charge that nightly. But a smartwatch that is doing health tracking, including maybe sleep cycles, is not something you should be forced to remove every night and put back on in the morning. I think the battery life needs to be a week to really be fit for purpose.
Adding 3G capability to a watch is stupid. It should have its own GPS antenna so you don't need to bring your phone with while on a run or whatever, but 3G - especially to make calls - is just stupid. Watches only need bluetooth, and can communicate with a nearby phone or computer for everything else they need.
If they had made this 30 years ago it would have been a wild success, because the generation that grew up with Dick Tracy would still be young enough to think talking into your wrist was cool!
-
Thursday 28th August 2014 19:20 GMT Dave, Portsmouth
Apple Fan... But I like it!
So, most of my stuff is Apple. And the previous "smart watches" have all been pointless for me. But this one... we're getting there!
So they've removed the screws from the front, which is a definite bonus. But mainly I like the fact it's got GPS, wifi and Bouetooth - means I can use it while out running to keep track of where I've been, hopefully via NikePlus show me a current time / pace / maybe even a little map if I get lost. Bluetooth means I could use it with some bluetooth headphones for music. And wifi means it can hopefully synchronise itself online when I get home, without needing to faff syncing it to the phone first or anything like that. Sounds ideal!
Just needs to be a tually proven to do all of that stuff, for the battery to last long enough to use NikePlus or Bluetooth music for a good few hours each, for it to sync seamlessly with my contacts, music, etc, and for it to be cheap! Problem with my usage is that I'd only wear it for running, cycling and a few other bits - so don't want something too expensive! Oh, and waterproof would be good too!
-
Friday 29th August 2014 08:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Apple Fan... But I like it!
Sounds like you want a garmin forerunner watch or similar...
Can understand people using their phones if not wanting to by a gps running watch, but once you decide on getting a gps watch, the usual suspects seem so much better than a generic smartwatch that you could use for running tracking too.
Can understand the sleep tracking angle of a wearable for the fitness/health angle, but all the other movement trackers etc to me just seem like desperate attempts to pat yourself on the back for having moved somewhat during the day without actually exercising.
Than you can count some extra calories into your daily requirement, have that extra treat and a few weeks later wonder why you still haven't lost weight and buy the next miracle gadget that will solve that issue for you.
-