Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Samsung Unveils $299 Galaxy Gear Smart Watch With One-Day Battery Life

I was hoping Samsung had actually put some real mustard behind this drive. But it seems like all their creative minds could come up with was "lets put android on your wrist"... and then just threw together a watch around that.

it's not very nice looking for a watch. it's not very useful for an android system. It's like they just tried to cram as much of a phone on your wrist as they could then stopped 1/2 way.

Sony's Smartwatch isn't much better.

I for one, When i wear a watch, if it's going to be a smart watch, don't want to wear an unsightly square screen with a wrist strap. I want a watch. Something that looks good. feels good, and is somewhat "designer" first and foremost, and then add in additional smart functionality.

For once, I am really hoping to see what Apple is going to hit us with. I hope they've been monitoring everyone else and have something more in line with the product I wish to see in a "smart watch".

first. start with a more traditional shaped watch. Being, Round. yes, I'm encouraging a round screen. this is 2013, invent it. Make it shaped like a modern regular watch, with some nice steel / metal framing like you see in nice watches. then, get rid of the "android app" mentality. this is a watch. Not a pocket computer. it isn't going to be a replacement for your phone. It needs to be an accompanying product. Something that does all it's communications with. Pebble has the software mentality down better than what samsung is going for here. Apple needs to take that, expand on it and integrate it into a beautiful watch.
 
My question

How is it even possible for the battery life to be that bad? I could probably make something cooler in my garage with better battery life. Although I think the camera in the wristband is a bit beyond my capabilities... Well, not really, but I wouldn't bother anyway.
 
Wow, I was rooting for Samsung, but you cannot get more of an EPIC FAIL with this monstrosity, I don't think even Microsoft could fail more than this. Huge, ugly, exposed screws, limited to 2 phones so far, and the worst fail is the $299 price. It's a shame, I had high hopes for this one, and I was hoping it would push me to buy a Note 3 so I could keep it in my pocket more often. But I wouldn't be caught dead at my own funeral with the hideous monstrosity on my wrist.
 
This is the part where Samsung discovers just how difficult it is to innovate rather than replicate.
 
AXs said:
Exactly. My Rolex is $10,000 - which isn't even that much compared to what's out there. $300 is pennies for a watch especially if you consider as a man's one jewelry.

But it's gotta offer something more than plastic.

Are people going to compare it to smart phones, or compare it to watches? That's the real question.

im watch has smartwatches with sleek touch for good prices.
Click to expand...

I think high end watches are something completely different when you look at value. I have a Rolex as well, I just had it appraised for insurance and I was surprised to learn that it had appreciated quite a bit in value. A one year old Gear when Gear 2 comes out and Gear 1 only sold a couple thousand watches will be worth $60 on Craigslist.

Additionally I've always made the argument that smartwatches need to be not only functional but also beautiful, like a high end watch, but they are not, every single one continues to be released looking like a 1980's casio calculator watch. Samsung did one worse, and released some kind of monstrosity combining the worst of all worlds with zero aesthetic appeal.
 
Winni said:
Yes, the mythical Apple watch that nobody has yet seen and that probably does not even exist. At this point, the iWatch is as much vaporware as the Apple TV.

You can't compare EXISTING products with rumored fantasy products. Full stop.
Click to expand...

You can when the released product (Gear) is as bad as the initial reviews say.
 
spinedoc77 said:
I think high end watches are something completely different when you look at value. I have a Rolex as well, I just had it appraised for insurance and I was surprised to learn that it had appreciated quite a bit in value. A one year old Gear when Gear 2 comes out and Gear 1 only sold a couple thousand watches will be worth $60 on Craigslist.

Additionally I've always made the argument that smartwatches need to be not only functional but also beautiful, like a high end watch, but they are not, every single one continues to be released looking like a 1980's casio calculator watch. Samsung did one worse, and released some kind of monstrosity combining the worst of all worlds with zero aesthetic appeal.
Click to expand...

always what I've said.

If i'm wearing something on my wrist, i dont want to look like a highschool math club geek, or out of a 1980's dick tracy comic.

I'm not talking aboutsomething that looks like a 10,000 rolex here either. I wear a $120 watch, that looks more professional and quality than these plastic and rubber dohickeys. this is not a watch, even if it had all the functionality in the world I would ever be seen in public wearing.
 
Will it be a watch or an accessory?

prowlmedia said:
Living in a dream world. $199 will get you a pretty ****** ordinary watch!! Adn the $79 range is joke. $2 movements and a bit of leather.

$199

Even the seiko 'smart' watches are $500 and the Tissot T-Touch watches are $700 - Decent fitness watches are $300

$299 is very cheap. But then again. Some people are cheap and are happy with a $7 timex.
Click to expand...

You might be right. As I've stated, wristwatches are not my thing so my price expectations are obviously way off when it comes to existing wristwatches. I'd never even heard of Tissot. A quick check of the Tissot website revealed that the most expensive Men's Tissot T-Touch retails for $1,250! I have no need for such a watch so that price to me is outrageous. Someone else might view that watch as exactly what they need and the price to be perfectly reasonable.

But for any sort of iAccessory, I don't think my $79-$129 price expectations are unreasonable at all. Any more than that and it should be a fully independent iDevice in its own right. Integrated into the Apple ecosystem through iCloud so you can coordinate its data on other iDevices and your Mac, sure! But if it's no more than a companion device, I can't see Apple expecting people, even their most devout followers, to shell out 300 bucks or more.

But to your point, I would expect a well-crafted wristwatch from a watch maker to be expensive. By that same token, if all I needed was a throwaway timepiece, a cheap $7 Timex would serve that purpose just fine.

If I truly needed a wristwatch, I'd turn to a watch manufacturer like Seiko or Tissot (thanks for that), weigh my needs against available features, styling, and cost (at which I'd grumble until I got a solid bead on industry trends, and apparently $300 for decent watch is where things currently stand), and then make my confident purchase. Honestly, I'd be surprised if some of those more expensive wristwatches don't already have Bluetooth pairing capabilities that extend their functionality to iDevices, Droids, and computers through the use of custom apps.

If Apple's supposed iWatch is to compete with these already-existing "smart" time pieces, then it better be a solid, stand-alone watch first and foremost, with added smartphone-like features. That's the only way they could legitimately justify a $300+ price tag in my view. Otherwise, for that kind of money, I'd rather have a "real" watch.

And how exactly would such a product, priced in that range, fit into Apple's already existing product line? I'm just not seeing the phantom product category that smartwatches from the likes of Apple or Samsung are meant to fill, or create. Not that whatever Apple's working on, if they are in fact working on anything of the sort, can't fill or create it. Apple has a history of seeing what the rest of us cannot so I don't put it past them, but for now I'm just not seeing it.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
And the band has the old pin-hole system, I'd expect something newer... less moving parts.

I'm sure apple wont use the pin hole system.
 
Sure, the watch is ugly and has horrible battery life, but I think being first to market has much more to do with it than anything else, even if it's a complete failure.
 
lastcall said:
Sure, the watch is ugly and has horrible battery life, but I think being first to market has much more to do with it than anything else, even if it's a complete failure.
Click to expand...

First to market? Ignoring Sony, Pebble and a few others?
 
GS4 owner chiming in

I switched from a 4S to the GS4. I couldn't be happier with my decision.

That said, I was hoping for a lot better than this monstrosity. I don't want a damn camera on my wrist, I don't want a clunky iPod Nano, I have an iPod Nano with watch strap thank you very much.

I want something smaller that integrates with Google Now (not ****ing ****** S Voice) and does texting, calls, emails, tweets, Facebook, and just about every other posting type known to man. I want a fully featured device that packs the previously mentioned features plus all that of the Fitbit Flex or Jawbone Up. I also want native Google App integrations for Gmail, Google Maps, Google Music, and Youtube. I don't need some ****** custom overlay app memographer.

I'm really really leaning towards glass at the moment considering if this is where the wrist device market is going for Android I want none of it.
 
Samsung have lost the plot. It looks like their devs said, how can we make a watch cool and add cool features so they tried that, and failed. Samsung failed to ask the No.1 question.

"What would the customer want with X product"
And not X or Y feature. I mean at a very base level. What base functionality/form do they want or need out of this product area. And for a watch I think these would rate highly:

1. A long lasting battery.
Charge a phone every day sure. But a watch? No one would do that and frankly they should not have to. So you have some options here.
- Improve battery tech to allow a smart watch to exist. I think the tech is just not there yet in a watch's compact form yet. But Apple could have an ace up it's sleeve here
- Solar recharging, recharge using your footsteps or some other way to charge other then a cable and your power point.

2. Form factor must be "cool" to the customer. Not just cool to the engineers of the device only
A computer or a phone one could argue are a necessity of life for some people. But these days a watch does nothing a phone can't do. I even use my iPhone for the time and have not worn a watch in years. So these days you have to give people a reason to spend money on and wear a watch.
Also a watch these days is considered a fashion accessory. Gone are the days where a watch was the best way to tell you the time. Now one could argue your phone does that best.
All of this makes the watch in 2013 a fashion accessory and nothing more. So to get people to buy it, it has to look cool. And make the user (at least initially) feel great to wear it.

3. Keep the brand's expectations high in the customer's eyes
Many people buy Apple products because some people think they just work. Or that the ecosystem is so great. Sure Apple products are not without fault but that's a general reputation the brand has garnered over the years. One any future products need to uphold.
People expect company's new products to be as good or better in terms of quality/features then what was previously released.
This Samsung watch honestly is not very good and people will be disappointed with it. And this hurts Samsung as a brand. A brand being one of the major ways to keep your loyal customers always purchasing from you

etc etc but you get my point.
 
Hastings101 said:
I still think "smart watches" are stupid. Please stay away from this market, Apple!
Click to expand...

Apple will pull an iPad here. As in Apple competed with the netbook by re-inventing a totally different category (tablets) to simply surpass everything the netbook does. And Apple I guess will make something new and interesting that will blow what we define as a watch today, out of the water.
 
I could just see Apple making their 'iWatch', then Samsung sueing Apple that they made it first.
I like the idea of a watch; (I hate taking out my iPod to switch to the song I like, I know that there is a remote for the EarPods, but still), and a watch would be used in a variety of ways, but I really don't like the way that Samsung is making a open door so that Apple can fall in a trap in Samsung's master court plan.
 
The Deepness said:
Good! You shouldn't be distracted by anything while biking or driving. I use GPS by MotionX to track my outdoor activities. Just went mountain biking yesterday. It not only tracks my path, distance, speed, and elevation, but also announces my progress every five minutes (even with my iPhone switched to silent). The announcements every five minutes are a convenient reminder to take a swig of water while riding so I don't get dehydrated. All this is with my iPhone tucked safely in my CamelBak. I never need to look at it. Nor would I ever need to look at a watch with similar features.



TOTALLY AGREE!!!!!!! People can be SO incredibly rude with their smartphones. Whenever I go out to lunch or dinner with a friend, I shut my iPhone OFF. I'm there to enjoy the company of my friend, not be a conduit for them to experience what's on my iPhone.



Any number of existing devices are already useful when running in the park. A watch form factor won't add anything.



Exactly the point of myself and many other posters here. The smartwatch as a concept just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. At least not yet.



I agree! Wrist watches have been around for a very long time, and their functionality has pretty much been nailed. A successful smartwatch from any company would have to either so reinvent the product that we'll wonder how cavemen ever survived without it, or be so desired (regardless of usefulness) that people will pay anything for them.



That is talking about value. We just value different things when it comes to the concept of a smartwatch. And it's fine to agree to disagree. You seem to value added functionality above all else and are willing pay what I consider to be an exorbitant price for it. I'd expect added functionality from such a device as well, but value a minimally-intrusive yet stylish design for a low price ($79-$129) more.



I disagree. I'm not convinced that Apple is definitely coming out with a smartwatch, but if they do, I expect that they will be able to do so in an elegantly-designed device with a rich feature set, all for a surprisingly low price.



Again, I disagree. And this comes back to our differing perceptions of value. Considering their design, build quality, reliability, and longevity, I don't believe any of Apple's products to be "very expensive, especially when compared to alternative devices from other companies" (boldface mine) and don't regard that as a factual statement at all. You get what you pay for. Apple's products may cost a bit more up front than similar products from their competitors in some instances, but when you factor in ease of use and reliability over the life of the products, most products from Apple's competitors simply don't measure up and often wind up being as, if not more, expensive.



We certainly do! You're more sold on the concept than I am at present. If Apple does come out with a smartwatch, and if it knocks my socks off, I may consider paying that kind of money for it too, but I seriously doubt it.

We will see. :)
Click to expand...


Thanks for your reply, a very decent one as well that's also rare these days :) Thumbs up!
 
The Samaung Galaxy Gear Smart Watch
$299 - 4GB of storage

galaxygear.jpg


iPod Nano (6th Gen) with 3rd party wrist strap addon
$149 (8 GB) $179 (16 GB) + whatever the wrist strap cost.

bigpicture8.jpg


See the difference here?
I certainly do.

The iPod Nano + 3rd party strap is cheaper, has more flash drive space, and out performs the Samsung watch hands down. And I think the iPod + strap option looks way cooler too.
 
Last edited:
the8thark said:
Samsung failed to ask the No.1 question. "What would the customer want with X product"
Click to expand...

Excellent points, but I think it's even more fundamental: They failed to inquire how they could make a customer's life better.

(or they just coasted with the definition that "Better" = "More stuff") :)
 
studio¹³¹ said:
The Qualcomm watch is uglier than the Samsung. Why waste screen space with that horrible gray strip housing an oddly placed logo?
Click to expand...

I agree that neither of them are good looking. Perhaps they should've taken a cue from the I'M watch designed in Italy, which has a curved capacitive screen:

im_watch.PNG

Or even a Chinese wrist full GSM smartphone available on eBay:

2013_ebay.png

However, I think Qualcomm did do some things right: they used a low power display to get 3-5 days of use.

They also made recharging much less of a chore, by using a quick release band and an inductive charger pad. It'd be relatively easy to snap it off and lay it on a bedside table once every few nights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back