backtop


Print 20 comment(s) - last by zogmeister.. on Oct 17 at 9:26 AM

SmartWatch 2 promises up to four days of use per charge

Sony has announced that the SmartWatch 2 has launched in the United States at an official price of $199.95. The watch will be available at online direct from the Sony Store. Sony also notes that other online retailers will carry the smartwatch as well.
 
Key features of the device include a display that is readable in bright sunlight and the ability to pair with Android smartphones running version 4.0 of the operating system and later (unlike the $300 Samsung Galaxy Gear which requires Android 4.3). The watch supports one-touch NFC pairing to Android smartphones allowing users to check text messages, calendar events, Gmail, Facebook, Twitter, and more.

 
The watch is water resistant carrying an IP57 rating and can be submerged in up to 3 feet of water for 30 min. The SmartWatch 2 has multiple strap options including stainless steel, brown leather, black leather, and five silicon colors. The watch uses a standard 24 mm thick strap mount allowing you to using just about any strap out there.
 
Sony equipped the SmartWatch 2 with a power efficient processor resulting in roughly 3 to 4 days between charges under normal usage conditions. The watch can access over 80 optimized apps along with 200 other apps thanks to backwards compatibility with apps designed for the original SmartWatch.

Source: Engadget



Comments     Threshold


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

Blows away Galaxy Gear
By techxx on 10/15/2013 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 5
This sounds like what the Galaxy Gear *should* have been. Excellent battery life, compatible, water resistant, etc...




RE: Blows away Galaxy Gear
By mrma on 10/15/2013 11:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
It's difficult to agree on that.

Samsung Galaxy Gear beats it in many ways;
+ 320x320 AMOLED screen vs 176x220 LCD
+ 1.9-megapixel camera vs NONE
+ gyroscope and accelerometer vs NONE
+ speaker plus two microphones vs NONE

the only pro is the price which is still expensive IMHO, but competition is always welcome.


RE: Blows away Galaxy Gear
By purerice on 10/15/2013 12:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think they're for 2 different markets.
The Galaxy Gear was a hashed up attempt to trump a (hopefully) non-existent iWatch. Accordingly they threw the kitchen sink into it but could not put it back together.

Notice the "2" at the end. It's Sony's second edition of a waterproof watch that provides access to your cell phone. It's not attempting to be a spy camera or HD TV. It's just trying to improve your watch and it does an OK job.

Samsung pulled a Tigger trying to be everything not knowing it couldn't be anything and Sony pulled an Eeyore not even trying. Perhaps the technology to get these watches to be truly fun and functional isn't out yet. The thought of having to recharge my watch every 2 days is all the more reason not to have a watch in the first place.


RE: Blows away Galaxy Gear
By Flunk on 10/15/2013 12:48:31 PM , Rating: 5
You forgot a few negatives for the Galaxy Gear.

-Only supports Galaxy Note 3 with the promise of supporting a few other models of Samsung Phones later.
-"Up To" 1 day battery life.
-Unchangeable integrated strap.
-larger and heavier.

I'm not saying the Sony phone is unquestionably "better" on all accounts but the Gear has a lot of big gotchas attached.


RE: Blows away Galaxy Gear
By troysavary on 10/15/2013 1:38:23 PM , Rating: 1
-Who needs a high res display to get notifications about who is calling or texting?

-Who needs a crappy camera on a watch strap unless you are a perv who wants to take upskirts or something?

-Gyro and acelerometer might have a couple limited uses on a watch.

-Who wants to try to hold a watch to their head except some Dick Tracy wannabe? Seriously, that is what BT headsets are for.

I have no interest in a smartwatch, but this is better than the Samsung joke for everyone except people who fap to specs.


RE: Blows away Galaxy Gear
By bug77 on 10/15/2013 1:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
Except that camera, gyroscope, speaker and microphones will never get used because you're still forced to carry the smartphone with you. I'm no Sony fan (and not looking to buy a smartwatch), but this time Samsung just has you paying for stuff you already have.


RE: Blows away Galaxy Gear
By FaaR on 10/15/2013 4:36:43 PM , Rating: 1
What good is higher res when the battery in the Gear runs out in 15 minutes (I might exaggerate just a little bit, I know.) The built-in camera is shit, and all you really can use it for is taking selfies, do you really need that? Gyro and accelerator, what use possibly can they be stuck to your arm? The speaker is worse than shit, stuck in a tiny device like that. As bad as it is, the speaker in the phone the watch is tethered to sounds better. Microphones, yeah, that's neat, but how are you going to make a call in a public place without everyone around you hearing what the other end's saying?

Most of the so-called "advantages" in the gear aren't, and the gear is a pretty terrible device.

Sony's watch could have been improved by a physically larger screen. They should have dumped the sony logo up there (put it on the wriststrap if there absolutely has to be one), and also the hardcoded button bar at the bottom and stretched the display fully out to the corners of the watch. Other than that, it's a neat gadget. Is there a headset jack perhaps? If not, that'd be disappointing, but guess they skipped that, on account of the thing alledgedly being waterproof...


RE: Blows away Galaxy Gear
By xti on 10/15/2013 2:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
i played with the GG for about 2 minutes at best buy...its so clunky and awful looking.

The more and more i think about it... watches are meant to be elegant. i guess they can be flashy too...but not this giant think with a screen on it. its worse than those overly bright Bluetooth earpieces that alerts everyone within a block that you have a BT earpiece.

i rather spend the money on a nice movado or something (idk watch brands but you get the point)


RE: Blows away Galaxy Gear
By tng on 10/15/2013 5:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
Citizen Eco-Drive. Never needs a recharge, just wear it in the light and you are good to go. Looks allot better than a "smart watch" and what happened to using a watch to find out what time it was?


Certainly not for me
By BZDTemp on 10/15/2013 1:01:16 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously don't need to have a "watch" that is an extension of my phone since actually being off line just a little is healthy.

While I can imagine that if one is dependent upon seeing every desired update instantly on a "watch" may seem like the best thing sliced bread, then I gotta wonder that if one is so dependent such a "watch" makes sense if not getting even more attached is unhealthy.

Also I find my vintage GP looks a lot better on my arm than the Sony "watch" even though is less ugly than the other ones. An actual mechanic watch wins every time.




RE: Certainly not for me
By Reclaimer77 on 10/15/2013 1:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Comparing an analog watch to a smartwatch is like putting an abacus against the modern PC. Be serious.

Wins every time? How myopic.


RE: Certainly not for me
By BZDTemp on 10/16/2013 2:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
:-) Seems you totally missed my point.

Since we in the modern world are surround by clocks there is no real need for a wearing a watch on most days. And as it is really much the same for all the other things a smart "watch" will tell then what matters is more the non-functional values provided. And here a classic timepiece is so much more attractive than a new gizmo which will be outdated just a moment from now.

PS. I wonder what works best just a few days away from a wall socket - an abacus or a PC.


RE: Certainly not for me
By zogmeister on 10/17/2013 9:26:45 AM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously trying to pit a "modern PC" against an abacus for the kind of task an abacus is typically asked to perform, which is addition/subtraction and sometimes multiplication/division on non-computerized numerical data? No modern PC will stand a chance against the abacus: by the time you open the laptop, wake up your PC and finish launching Excel, the abacus user will be running the numbers a second time to double check. Not to mention the severe PC disadvantage in size, weight, and total cost.

A pocket calculator is a fairer comparison. But even there abacuses have an advantage: you have to look pretty hard to find calculators with more than 12 significant digits. Abacuses routinely have over 20. This sounds like nit-picking until you start balancing corporate books in yen or won.


what the point
By mike66 on 10/15/2013 11:46:30 AM , Rating: 1
So now I have an even smaller screen to use as my phone and to use it I have to have my phone on me all the time and I have to touch the back of it (take it off in other words) to my phone every time it gets out of distance of the blue-tooth function, I have to also use the headphones to hear any audio. I can also just imagine what it would be like to try and reply to a email using it's on screen keyboard (oh it does not have one?)
Has anyone really thought about how practical this device really is ? I love gadgets and I might want one if it's for free with my next phone purchase but I don't think I'd use it long.




RE: what the point
By BZDTemp on 10/15/2013 1:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not that it changes much, but having to repair the phone and "watch" repeatedly is a misunderstanding or at least that is not how I have experienced that sort of pairing. The idea is simply that using NFC to pair is very easy and that once done there is no need to do it again except if one has paired another device in between. Simply think of it as a normal safe Bluetooth pairing only super easy without needing to enter codes and such.


RE: what the point
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/15/2013 2:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
Correct.

Pairing bluetooth devices only sets them up for secure communication. After that is done the bluetooth devices will remember each other and connect automatically afterward. The pairing process for this is simplified by using the smartphone's NFC when putting the face of the watch against the smartphone's back (sorry iPhone users - you don't get this kind of coolness).

As for functionality, this appears to be simply a notification device for your smartphone. If something shows up it lets you know via visual, audible and possibly tactile feedback while the phone is in your pocket. It is not meant to replace the full interface of the phone (that would be pretty useless with this tiny screen).


Almost there...
By quiksilvr on 10/15/2013 11:16:07 AM , Rating: 2
Just make it $99 and I'd get one today.




RE: Almost there...
By Stuka on 10/15/2013 11:26:12 AM , Rating: 2
The price is quite remarkable considering a good GShock will cost $120-150. Frankly any "nice" watch will cost 200 bucks easy, so this thing is quite cheap.


Fail
By Zetton on 10/15/2013 1:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
This is a "watch"? Because the only time display I see is tiny and in the upper right. This is a relaunch of a failed original concept. I wear a watch. I own several. The watches I own are automatics (mechanical) analog. I used this device to quickly get the time and date with the flick of a wrist without reaching into my pocket, pulling out my phone, entering a passcode, etc. Moreso, however, because it is an example of the beauty of craft and engineering design. On top of this, the notion that this must be charged every few days is absurd. Not everything you own has to be digital. For $200 I'd recommend a nice Seiko 5, Orient, or Sea-Gull automatic. Too old school? Get a G-Shock, Pathfinder, or Citizen Eco-Drive. This device is pointless (just like the first time around).




More "crap"
By mbuckaway on 10/16/2013 10:20:01 AM , Rating: 2
I saw this at the bottom of the Dailytech webpage:

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

That about explains the usefulness of a "smartwatch" in my view.




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki