backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by Jakeisbest.. on Sep 11 at 2:06 PM


  (Source: AnandTech)
Qualcomm boasts five times the battery life of Samsung's device, plus more vibrant display

Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd.'s (KSC:005930) announcement of the $300 USD Galaxy Gear smartwatch was met with mixed reactions yesterday.  Many questioned the appeal and utility of the form factor in general (why carry one more device?).  They backed these criticism, pointing to a long history of poorly selling smartwatch designs, such as the ones Seiko (Holdings Corp. (TYO:8050)) sold in the 1980s.

Others still weren't entirely dismissive of the smartwatch, but took issue with Samsung's choice to use a power-hungry 800 MHz Exynos core, a decision that reduced battery life to a day at best.

For that "on the fence" segment, Qualcomm, Inc.'s (QCOM) announcement of the Toq (pronounced "Talk") smartwatch may interest you.  

Toq
Qualcomm Toq smartwatch [Image Source: AnandTech]

Here's a quick rundown of what is known and announced with Toq:
  • Price: $300
  • Release Date: Q4 2013
  • Processor: 200 MHz Cortex M3
  • Display:
    • 1.5-1.6 inches
    • Mirasol (E-INK like display) 
  • Battery:
    • Large
    • In a separate band component
  • Battery Life:
    • Max:     5 days
    • Typical: 3 days (moderate to heavy use)
  • Wireless:
    • stereo Bluetooth (serial, Alljoyn)
    • charging (WiPower LE case -- drop the watch on its case to charge)
  • Other: Water resistant
Like Samsung's Galaxy Gear, Toq acts as a second screen for your smartphone, allowing you to scan texts, emails, control music, without the "herculean task" of taking your smartphone out of your pocket.  But unlike Samsung, Qualcomm is looking to make the device cross platform, with iOS support coming (according to Engadget).


Qualcomm CEO Dr. Paul Jacobs comments:

Toq's always on, always connected, always visible wearable technology gives you a 'Digital 6th Sense,' telling you what you need to know, when you need to know it, with just a glance at your wrist or a whisper in your ear. Toq is a showcase for the benefits of the Mirasol display, WiPower LE and stereo Bluetooth technologies and highlights the experience that the wearable category can provide.

The highlight of the watch is its Mirasol display, a special reflective display technology Qualcomm has been developing.  First announced in 2012 Mirasol was inspired by the chemistry of butterfly wings and consumes significantly less power than traditional LCD screens.  Like E-INK it is sharp and crisp outdoors (like a pritned page) where even backlit LCDs can look washed out.

Mirasol
Don't tell PETA about how many butterflies must have died to make Qualcomm's latest display.

Combined with the low-power processor, Qualcomm is promising a much better battery life than Samsung.  While not traditionally a device maker, Qualcomm says it made the device as a proof of concept for the Mirasol technology.  Rob Chandhok, president of Qualcomm Internet Services and Qualcomm Innovation Center, told CNET in an interview, "We're not trying to be a consumer electronics company, but we do want to make a statement about what we think features and characteristics of successful wearable computing [are] going to be."

The Qualcomm smartwatch isn't shipping until Q4, and will only ship in limited quantities this year -- so Samsung (and Apple, Inc. (AAPL)?) may have the lead in bringing product to the market.  But the Qualcomm watch certainly brings some unique features to the table.

Sources: Qualcomm, AnandTech, CNET, Engadget





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Useless
By exeedorbit on 9/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: Useless
By flyingpants1 on 9/5/2013 3:43:52 PM , Rating: 5
You can choose whether to reply right now or not by glancing at your hand instead of getting your phone from your pocket, your purse, or across the room from a charger. Also, I would swype on a watch.


RE: Useless
By Nortel on 9/5/2013 3:55:22 PM , Rating: 4
It could be cool. If you had preset responses like "ok" and "no" mapped to watch buttons, or even voice to text, it could work quite nicely.


RE: Useless
By retrospooty on 9/5/2013 4:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
"It could be cool. If you had preset responses like "ok" and "no" mapped to watch buttons, or even voice to text, it could work quite nicely."

Wow... I am impressed. You actually said something that wasn't angry, bitter or stupid. It actually made sense and wasn't biased. You didn't even claim they copied it from Apple. Nice one!

Congrats. http://i.imgur.com/UaZH6Mq.gif


RE: Useless
By othercents on 9/5/2013 5:03:43 PM , Rating: 3
Preset responses would be cool especially a "I'm driving" response. I check my phone quite a bit through out the day due to company email and almost 90% of the time I am just putting the phone back away without responding. Having a device I can glance at that isn't as cumbersome as the phone would be a great time saver and would keep me from dropping the phone.


RE: Useless
By sleepeeg3 on 9/5/2013 7:42:08 PM , Rating: 3
Like an 80's pager?


RE: Useless
By Samus on 9/6/2013 4:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
You ALL need to run the "Glance" app on Pebble.

It shows real time weather based on your location, allows reply to email/text messages (up to 6 pre-defined entires, I use ones like '5 mins away' '30 mins away' 'ok' 'be there soon' 'no thanks' etc, decline and reply phone calls, programmable macros of phone functions (like turn off radio, turn of wifi when going more than 20mph) and turn-by-turn directions through google maps/navigation.

ohh, it also shows calendar events/reminders, shows train schedules, stock updates...

ugg, heres the link: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.c...


RE: Useless
By vol7ron on 9/6/2013 11:47:45 AM , Rating: 2
90s


RE: Useless
By piroroadkill on 9/6/2013 4:02:43 AM , Rating: 2
It already does. Toq does this.


RE: Useless
By hughlle on 9/6/2013 6:40:12 AM , Rating: 2
$300 so you don't have to take your phone out of your pocket. Seems very justifiable to me..

There might be a market for this device, but i don't personally think it's your every day consumer. More likely some sort of professional capacity. I mean look at bluetooth headsets, cheap as chips, you don't even have to touch your phone to take a call, you won't find anyone actually using them though, other than delivery drivers and such.


RE: Useless
By CaedenV on 9/6/2013 2:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, never thought of it in the context of headsets. I remember back when everybody was buying them, but now you never see them in use in spite of their cheap price.

Personally I hate having things on my body (other than clothes of course). Watches bothered me to no end as a kid, rings agitate my fingers, glasses make my nose sore, and while I have to wear headphones all of the time at home (so as not to wake the kiddos) I also find them to be a pain. I love technology, and I welcome the day when sci-fi becomes reality and we can have tech embedded into our bodies; but until that day comes I am quite content to only carry around a single piece of tech rather than being a gadget covered borg.

And the smartwatch movement goes completely against the current cultural trends. It use to be that 'way back' in the '90s and early '00s that a tech junkie would have a cell phone, laptop, at least 1 external storage device, a walkman/radio/CD/MP3 player, possibly a portable video player, a GPS for the car, some sort of headset/headphones, and lots of spare batteries, cables, and accessories for all of these devices.
Fast forward 10 years and almost all of that has consolidated down to 2-3 devices with a single USB cable/charger that works for all of them. I understand the desire of companies to make devices to fill the void of sales numbers due to this consolidation, but surely a smartwatch is not the way to go about it. I am not saying that it is not going to be useful for some (just as a phablet would be rather useful to me), but to think that these will ever become popular is a silly notion unless they become a replacement for the phone itself.


RE: Useless
By Reclaimer77 on 9/5/2013 4:02:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Smart watches have been tried, and tried, and tried, only to always come to the same disastrous conclusion. I imagine very few people see the need in carrying yet another device around.


That's because the technology hasn't been there yet. We're just now getting to the point of component miniaturization and efficiency where things like this start to make sense.

Also you're not lugging around a watch, you wear it.

I think something is wrong with a tech enthusiast who blows off things like Google Glass and Smart Watches offhand. What a lack of vision, seriously.

quote:
Unless these comes with gorilla glass (I doubt it)


Uhh Gorilla glass is thinner, lighter, and stronger than regular glass. Wtf wouldn't these use Gorilla glass?


RE: Useless
By Shig on 9/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: Useless
By Reclaimer77 on 9/5/2013 4:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
Pardon me?


RE: Useless
By 91TTZ on 9/5/2013 5:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think something is wrong with a tech enthusiast who blows off things like Google Glass and Smart Watches offhand. What a lack of vision, seriously.


I think a tech enthusiast is allowed to blow off developments that he finds useless.

When the iPad came out I liked the idea of it. When the Surface RT came out I thought it was useless and would be abandoned. Some ideas are innovative whereas others are just half-assed attempts to seem innovative.


RE: Useless
By Solandri on 9/5/2013 5:46:28 PM , Rating: 2
It seems pretty obvious to me this is where computers are headed. First they were as big as a room, then as big as a desk, then they fit on top a desk, then they fit on your lap, and now they fit in your pocket. The next logical step is for them to shrink to something small enough that you could easily lose it if it's not strapped to your body. The watch is a time-proven strapped form factor.

The only major impediment to this shrinkage is display size. But with DLNA becoming more commonplace and people becoming more aware of its capability (you can stream movies from your phone to your TV), I think in a few years we're going to successfully decouple the display from the computer (which isn't really that big a change - they only became coupled with the advent of laptops, then PDAs/smartphones/tablets).

Your PC/phone/PDA will be strapped to your wrist. It will contain the CPU, RAM, storage, and networking, with a rudimentary display for simple phone and PDA-like tasks. Your "tablet" will be a 7"-11" display with no substantial computing capability - it will wirelessly connect to your watch and acts as a supplemental display for the watch. Your "laptop" will be a 12"-17" display and portable keyboard/mouse which also wirelessly connect to your watch.

In the far future, the computer will shrink even more. Maybe to the size of a ring you can wear on your finger.


RE: Useless
By 91TTZ on 9/6/2013 11:13:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It seems pretty obvious to me this is where computers are headed. First they were as big as a room, then as big as a desk, then they fit on top a desk, then they fit on your lap, and now they fit in your pocket. The next logical step is for them to shrink to something small enough that you could easily lose it if it's not strapped to your body. The watch is a time-proven strapped form factor.


I disagree. It's easy to see that the earliest technology is usually large and cumbersome, but you can't look at the size reduction and extrapolate that trend forever. After a certain point convenience takes over and the final form factor is the one which is the most convenient for its intended purpose. Since one of the main functions of a smartphone is the phone, that necessitates being able to talk into it. The other main function is that of a computer screen that you can look at. As you already pointed out, screen size becomes an issue. So the multifunction devices that we call smartphones need to satisfy a few basic requirements which put limits on their form.

If you noticed trends in phones, they have gotten larger, not smaller. The most popular phones now have larger screens than phones just a few years ago, and even those were larger than phones before that. But manufacturers have tried to extrapolate that trend and go even larger but that hasn't worked out, either, since it makes the device unwieldy.

I know people want to be "progressive" but they need to truly understand what progress is. Progress operates within practical constraints. When I see movies where they have people driving 3 wheeled cars in the future I laugh because such a configuration has problems with basic physics, such as flipping over when you hit the brakes and turn at the same time. It's just impractical at a fundamental level. Real progress occurs when things become better at being practical... devices become easier to use, more affordable, and more efficient.


RE: Useless
By blue_urban_sky on 9/6/2013 4:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
You're short sighted. It would make practical sense to decouple the display from the processing especially when tech reaches a level where a ring sized computer would serve your needs.


RE: Useless
By 91TTZ on 9/9/2013 9:49:22 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not short sighted at all. In fact the opposite is true. If you read my posts on here you'll see that I've consistently been accurate in my predictions while other people have been falling for the hype bandwagon over and over again.


RE: Useless
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/5/2013 8:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
I like that the battery life is good for 3-5 days. Not long enough IMHO, but better than Samsung's effort. The display tech I am a little on the fence about. e-Ink type displays are absolutely horrible at refresh speeds. They are fine for an e-book, but on a more dynamic display I fear these would suck donkey turds. I hope qualcomm tests that display refresh speed thoroughly. The Toq has one glaring omission compared to the Galaxy Gear -- the missing camera. That omission combined with the identical $300 price as the Samsung offering pretty much negates the value factor of the Toq.

Gorilla glass would be good on these, but sapphire would be far better. Sapphire is harder and more scratch resistant than gorilla glass. The only thing keeping sapphire off of phone and tablet displays is it is expensive to make at that size. Watches on the other hand are the perfect application for sapphire which is used for most high-end watch crystals today.


RE: Useless
By JPForums on 9/6/2013 9:56:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I like that the battery life is good for 3-5 days. Not long enough IMHO ...
I agree that 3-5 days isn't enough. If I'm going to wear a watch, I don't want to have to constantly worry about its battery level. I suppose I'd settle for a weekly charge, though I'd really prefer monthly.
quote:
The display tech I am a little on the fence about. e-Ink type displays are absolutely horrible at refresh speeds.
It's a good thing that its not e-Ink. What Mirasol has in common with e-Ink is that it is a reflective display technology. That said, how fast do refresh rates need to be for a device like this. While I'd prefer better response times, even e-Ink would be fast enough to show me a text message, caller info, or the time.
quote:
The Toq has one glaring omission compared to the Galaxy Gear -- the missing camera. That omission combined with the identical $300 price as the Samsung offering pretty much negates the value factor of the Toq.
With all due respect, I can't see the camera in the Samsung offering as useful for anything outside of espionage. There just doesn't seem to be enough room for proper optics and the form factor doesn't exactly scream control either. Even if it were perfectly usable, I'd still prefer a device like this that has a display that is readable in outdoor lighting conditions over one with a camera. Mirasol does seem to fit this better than an actively lit display.
quote:
Gorilla glass would be good on these, but sapphire would be far better.
I totally agree here, but it probably won't happen until the traditional watch manufacturers decide to make smart watches.


RE: Useless
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/6/2013 8:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With all due respect, I can't see the camera in the Samsung offering as useful for anything outside of espionage. There just doesn't seem to be enough room for proper optics and the form factor doesn't exactly scream control either. Even if it were perfectly usable, I'd still prefer a device like this that has a display that is readable in outdoor lighting conditions over one with a camera. Mirasol does seem to fit this better than an actively lit display.


Thanks for the sensible replay.

The camera (appears to be on the band with the Samsung gear) doesn't look really any less capable than some of the 5MP cameras usually popped on the back of smart phones. Application wise I would find it less obtrusive to take a picture or video with the watch simply by holding up your arm toward the subject, framing it in the display and tapping to take the shot or control the video (you do have to hold your arm up and look at the watch's display). Seems a little less obtrusive than holding a phone up in your subject's face. Would be useful in situations where you don't want to look like a dweeb holding up your camera for a picture. It really is not just for espionage or locker-room spying.

Cost-wise, I can see a camera, wifi, active screen and higher-end processor in Samsung's (also overpriced) watch costing more to include. Simply building around a reflective-technology screen and a bigger battery really can't justify the Toq's $300 price tag. I would say that watch is worth $200 (and the Samsung valued at $250) max.

Don't get me wrong here. I really see no market need for a device like Samsung's Gear watch - especially with a $300 cost. I find the Toq more acceptable, but I find the price even less acceptable for what you get than Samsung's.


RE: Useless
By Jeffk464 on 9/5/2013 4:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
Like what was said about the samsung, the real potential for these is for joggers and cyclists. Incorporate a heart rate monitor(I think they make them in bluetooth) and GPS and its the perfect device. It can provide your tunes or podcasts, give your current speed, avg speed, grade of the climb your on, and track your heart rate through the whole workout and record it for tracking your progress.


RE: Useless
By Jeffk464 on 9/5/2013 4:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
Apple, I hope you read this forum. :)


RE: Useless
By Jeffk464 on 9/5/2013 5:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
For fitness I wouldn't even mind if it was an arm band instead of a watch. Its not exactly a fashion statement so if it were like 2 inches wide on my arm no biggie.


RE: Useless
By 91TTZ on 9/5/2013 5:20:32 PM , Rating: 3
I like technology but I think we're seeing an industry scurrying to find new ways to make a profit.

It's all a race to the bottom. Once something new comes out it carries a premium for a while until it becomes a commodity. In the case of these new watches, I don't think they're going to catch on because they're redundant. People already carry around a smartphone with them that does everything these watches do and more.


RE: Useless
By dgingerich on 9/5/2013 5:26:20 PM , Rating: 4
Tablets had been tried several times, too, and until recently, had failed. The technology needed to catch up.

With smart watches, I anticipate the Samsung version failing miserably simply due to its form factor. It's too big, has to be turned on to read it, and is awkward to keep on the wrist. The Qualcomm will probably do well due to the form factor. It's small enough, thin enough, and charges easily enough that it would probably do what people want it to do. All I would want from one would be something to show the time, phone call ID, and receiving text messages and emails. (I frequently get emails on my work iPhone, but never respond to them using the iPhone. I use my computer to respond, if it is needed. Frequently, the text or email is just a bit of information someone is sending me to do a task, like an IP address or location for something. I would like just the read-only aspect for that because that is frequently all I need to do.) Qualcomm's low power e-ink like display that stays on all the time is exactly what something like this would need. The active screen of the Samsung is a horrible idea. Finally, separating the battery and the main display is a great idea, in that it allows a more watch-like fit. That Samsung just weighs too much in one location, and is just too thick and clunky.

As for the crystal, I'd expect something like this could come with an artificial sapphire face plate. My $80 watch has that feature. I would expect a smart watch would certainly get that much.


RE: Useless
By Yofa on 9/5/2013 5:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
i'm an early adopter, with the sony smartwatch. although i can't justify this pair of $300 watches, i'm happy with mine. you're right, this device is redundant, but so is a second monitor, a laptop, or a 7-in companion tablet to your smartphone. but from the perspective of early adopters, it's a god-send.

there are only 3 reasons i typically reach into my pocket to check my phone; text message, check the time, or see who's calling. this $100 sony smartwatch secondary screen allows me to see the notifications without awkwardly reaching into my pocket whether in meetings, in conversation, or even in theaters.

we early adopters see the applications before-hand, and 2 years down the line, when these things are common, non-adopters will just sound like cranky old whiners. it works! and people can judge with their wallets. but $300? too much...


RE: Useless
By piroroadkill on 9/6/2013 4:02:21 AM , Rating: 2
No. I did you even watch the Toq video? You can pre-define canned responses in the app on your phone - then quickly reply to emails used a canned response.

This, although not a total solution, is actually pretty nifty.


Waiting for Apple
By mik123 on 9/5/2013 4:17:26 PM , Rating: 1
Until Apple releases one, no one is going to look at these seriously.
Same story as with pre-iPhone smartphones.

The secret to success for a smartwatch - it must look good. This one looks awful. Samsung one looks a little better, but still too bulky for my taste.

When it's elegant (let's see what Apple can do), and when it can replace my dumbphone, I'll buy one.




RE: Waiting for Apple
By JasonMick on 9/5/2013 5:17:29 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Until Apple releases one, no one is going to look at these seriously.
Same story as with pre-iPhone smartphones.
Alright, we know you're excited, but wipe that slobber about Tim Cook's "magic" watch off your chin.

(If it's slobber?)


RE: Waiting for Apple
By mik123 on 9/5/2013 5:30:10 PM , Rating: 1
Well, let's see: Apple did it for music players, for smartphones, and for tablets.

Or are you saying only Steve Jobs could pull it off (not Tim Cook)?


RE: Waiting for Apple
By Solandri on 9/5/2013 6:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
Apple pulled off those because they were substantially easier to use than their counterparts of the day. The iPod solved the "how do I sync my music collection between my PC and MP3 player" problem without people having to manually copy files between devices. The iPhone provided an easy and consistent interface to the PDA-like features being introduced to phones. And the iPad tapped into a market for a simple-to-use consumption-only device which was always there but was being discouraged by Microsoft and Intel because they wanted people to pay for full-blown computers (they successfully killed off the previous consumption-only device - the netbook).

Apple's problem isn't that Jobs is gone. It's that there's another strong competitor out there which provides just as much if not more ease of use on these less-than-a-PC devices. They're gonna have to come up with a new killer feature if they want their next product to take over that market. (That's provided the competition doesn't revert to the lame, obtuse, overburdened UIs which used to be commonplace on PDAs. Palm succeeded because even though the Pilot wasn't the best nor the most powerful PDA, its UI was simple and it got the job done with the least amount of fuss.)


RE: Waiting for Apple
By mik123 on 9/5/2013 6:49:50 PM , Rating: 1
Just because Apple has been so successful in the last decade means that whatever product they decide to release next is going to be noticed by the market. Even if it's very similar to competitors' products. I'm not saying it will be successful, but it will be noticed. No other company currently enjoys such a favorable market position.

And there's a good chance that Apple design will be more elegant, and simpler to use.

Thus my conclusion that if any smartwatch is meant to become popular, it will be an iWatch.
Of course, if that happens, others will have much easier time to sell their smartwatches.


RE: Waiting for Apple
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/5/2013 8:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
Not necessarily under Timmy. Jobs was Apple's visionary. He's gone.

We will just have to see what Apple can bring to the table. Frankly I am not expecting much originality there -- not without Jobs in the drivers seat.


RE: Waiting for Apple
By Jakeisbest on 9/11/2013 2:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing quite like throwing out an ad hominem attack against the readership is there?


RE: Waiting for Apple
By Tony Swash on 9/5/13, Rating: 0
RE: Waiting for Apple
By themaster08 on 9/6/2013 1:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
You've obviously never seen the Sony SmartWatch, but being the Apple fanboy that you are, I gather your head is too far up Tim Cook's ass to know about it.

For your curiosity:

http://www.sonymobile.com/global-en/products/acces...

Sony's offering is far better than both the Samsung and Qualcomm smartwatches. Both in looks and functionality. It's more capable than the Qualcomm, and supports more Android devices than the Samsung.


RE: Waiting for Apple
By Tony Swash on 9/6/2013 6:16:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sony's offering is far better than both the Samsung and Qualcomm smartwatches. Both in looks and functionality. It's more capable than the Qualcomm, and supports more Android devices than the Samsung.


And it's still clunky, primitive and limited just like the Samsung and Qualcomm smartwatches. If you think this sort of device is an example of good product design you don't set your quality standards very high.


RE: Waiting for Apple
By troysavary on 9/6/2013 1:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
So, what exactly would make a non-limited watch? What will the rumoured Apple watch do that sets it head and shoulders above the others?


RE: Waiting for Apple
By ritualm on 9/6/2013 3:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
By being Apple.

Thing is, even if you live and breathe Apple, the iWatch is going to give you plenty of usability nightmares. The company already tried it with a square-ish iPod nano, and it flunked at telling time while being used like a watch.


RE: Waiting for Apple
By mik123 on 9/6/2013 3:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares if it's better? All I said was that if it's not Apple, then nobody knows it exists. The fact that I, a tech enthusiast, never heard of this Sony watch, only proves my point.


RE: Waiting for Apple
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/7/2013 11:05:56 AM , Rating: 2
That you don't know about products outside Apple only shows that you are woefully uninformed about anything that doesn't fall off of the Apple tree.

There are a lot of really cool products out there that Apple has nothing to do with that the real tech heads are fully aware of.


RE: Waiting for Apple
By mik123 on 9/7/2013 3:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
If we do a survey, and ask a million people today if they know of any smartwatch products, you will get a tiny fraction. Then repeat the same survey after Apple releases their iWatch.
Getting my point?


RE: Waiting for Apple
By themaster08 on 9/9/2013 8:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
So basically because no one knows about it, it's a worse product? Are you stupid?

Popular != better.


RE: Waiting for Apple
By mik123 on 9/9/2013 9:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
Who are you responding to? I've never said anything like that.


synergy
By DocScience on 9/5/2013 8:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
With fewer accesses of the cellphone screen, I wonder what this will do to overall battery life of the phone?




RE: synergy
By Monkey's Uncle on 9/5/2013 8:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
Won't be the screen that eats that battery. It's the 'always on' bluetooth that does it.

Whenever your paired phone comes near it will be connected and eating battery even if you aren't looking at it. Bluetooth is a well known among smartphone users as a battery eater. I see the small batteries on these watches getting eaten even faster whenever your phone is near and paired.


Idiotic
By chripuck on 9/5/2013 3:51:38 PM , Rating: 1
Is about all I have to say about smartwatches, especially at $300.




RE: Idiotic
By inighthawki on 9/5/2013 4:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
I see a lot of potential in these devices, but I have yet to see anything that really stands out as "this is why I should get one"


By troysavary on 9/5/2013 5:56:59 PM , Rating: 3
While I didn't have much interest in a smartwatch, this one actually is nice. Going with a lower power chip is a good idea. The choice Samsung made baffles me since all either watch really does is link with a phone. No need for a powerful CPU. The form-factor is much nicer too. The Samsung watch is way too big for most people's wrists without looking awful. Keeping a cam off of it takes away from the creep factor. I can see the Samsung watch being banned from gyms and health clubs the way phones are now. But by far the biggest advantage is the display. The Mirasol display uses far less power, can be on all the time without draining the battery, and, perhaps most important, is reflective so can be easily read outdoors in the sun. Being platform agnostic is just icing on the cake.




So it begins!
By techxx on 9/5/2013 3:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
Love the competition. Once Apple's hits the market too, there should be some cool options out there. Price really needs to come down as well.




Have more gadgets
By valkator on 9/5/2013 4:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
For that price it better have some cool gadgets like in James Bond movies. Won't mind having a laser cutter or retractable wire.

That to me is a Smartwatch. :)




Interested
By phatboye on 9/5/2013 11:58:37 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike some of the other people here I am interested in this new watch form factor, although I have to agree with others on the usefulness of such a small form factor/small screen.
though my biggest gripe has to be the price, no way in hell will I pay $300 for a device with such low computational power which is only useful is as a companion device to a larger phone. maybe if they could bring the price to a more modest $50-$85. But for $300 forget about it.

Also to the people complaining about how hard it is to pull a phone out of your pocket, really, are you that damned lazy.




Nice seeing a Mirasol display
By ET on 9/6/2013 8:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
I love the idea of a tech watch, but I don't like the idea of charging my watch often, and once every several days is still too often. I'm waiting to see how the Touch Time turns out, since it promised a year of battery life.

I also plan to get a Nokia dumbphone. The recently announced 515 is supposed to have 33 days of standby. Even if it's half in practice, that'd be great.




By XZerg on 9/5/2013 4:53:17 PM , Rating: 1
the samsung pos fails as a watch and a smartwatch seriously. the price is too high for what it can do and the battery life is pathetic for a watch. they should have at least had 2 batteries or 1 battery where some is dedicated to the "watch" functionality which is more essential purpose of a smart"watch".




Is this the level of...
By msheredy on 9/6/2013 6:23:49 PM , Rating: 1
... laziness that we've come to? Too freakin' lazy to pull our phones out? Why develop this, and other, smart watches?

Google glass—fuck that! I don't even want to put on a pair of glasses.

Why not develop an eye ball(s) that can sync up and act as a heads up display (HUD) so that we don't even have to lift up our arms and tilt our heads down.




"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs













botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki