Indeed. The design of this watch screams 'pre-Apple'. It also screams 'We got to the market 1st!', even though it looks, frankly, ridiculous. In my opinion, something as visible as a watch (this goes for all watches) needs to be an object of beauty, something that when you see on someone else's wrist, you want to get one yourself. Nothing would persuade me to wear this huge plastic lump.
In what way were they interesting and insightful? The Samsung bashing? The Apple worshiping? Or the opinion that the watch isn't for him so nobody should like it?
Exactly... and those of us who truly love tech can easily see Samsung's effort here as solid and far ahead of the wearable technology game, whereas most other major brands are just sitting by waiting to leach off of the foundation Samsung is laying.
Far ahead? Please. The *watch* display is mostly off. It's a watch that fails to do what every watch since the beginning of time (see what I did there?) has been able to do. Tell time easily!
The "waiting to leach off the foundation Samesung is laying" is also comedy gold.
I see a lot of comments on these articles that show a lack of comprehension regarding patent law and how it applies. I thought I'd provide a bit of insight here for those who might not be conversant in the topic.
Apple's assertion in its lawsuits is that Samsung has copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents. These particular patents are known as design patents. It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist. There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of a side trip and requires that we speak about trademark law. Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents and provide some insights into the Apple versus Samsung trial.
Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark. By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' claim that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger. Why? For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores. The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal. This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.
Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law. This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas. Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively. Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement.
Here's what this case was about: After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand. After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products. Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand. Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari. Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari. The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.
But how does this relate to design patent law?
The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers. Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.
This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers immediate protection of a new and novel design and for a period of 14 years thereafter, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning in the market and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.
That's a lot of words to justify rounded corners design "patent" or some other dubious Apple patents like "swipe to do some action" or "bounce back feature".
Very interesting piece of information in history of design patents. But the problem many see in the Apple wars was not that they used design patents to protect their products in the first place, but how they used them. When you design something unique, that design should be protected, no doubt. But when you design a squarish blob with rounded corners and claim it to be unique, that's the problem. Companies have other means of distinguishing their products when using mundane form and design patterns. It's called logo. Company logo is always unique, protected by multiple laws and is easy way to distinguish one product from another. You don't see Drink manufacturers, for example, squabbling about bottle shapes in general. yes, there are some unique bottle shapes, but 99% of all bottles look the same. What distinguishes them one from the other, of course is branding, i.e. using color palette and logo to provide quick identification and association with consumers. Apple, just by the fact of being first to market, decided, basically, to patent generic bottle of smartphone shapes. Then it tried to SELECTIVELY sue other vendors who obviously stepped into the same common sense design decision.
Patents also can't be frivolous or vague, and have in some way be unique and not common sense.
Navigating apps through gestures is nothing new or unique. Finger gestures control have been around for years ever since the digitizing tablet was invented. Saying a left swipe to bounce back it about as patentable as me saying me scratching my ass is trademark motion.
So, who did Samsung copy in SSD, Memory, Laptops, Home Appliances, TV, Medical Equipments, Displays, Cameras, Ship building, etc.? Let's go back and say Apple copied GUI from XEROX. They do make some good products and some crappy products. But please don't talk like everything started with iPhone or Apple
GE, Toshiba, Intel, Fujitsu, Matsushita, Toshiba, Sharp, Siemens, Bell Labs, and just about anyone else they thought could make them a buck. Samsung has a sordid history of sleaze, including but not limited to, repeated convictions for bribery, price fixing, astroturfing, and Tax Evasion.
If that's too much history for the tldr in you, just look at how many IP theft suits aside from Apple Samsung is facing at the present.
I've stood in line for the iPhone , 3G, 3GS, 4, 4s, and ordered the iPhone 5. I just got the note 3 and it can do things I didn't know was possible. The note 3 makes my iPhone 5 seem like a Motorola razor flip phone. Apple has really fallen way way behind. All of these years I though Apple was the best, and all the arguments I've had with people that Apple was better. Apple Is a good phone for text and music and making phone calls and that is about it bite the note 3 can do way way more. It's not even fair to call the iPhone a smart phone compared to the note. But I must say, if you don't know how to use a computer, stick with the iPhone. The note 3 is too advance for people who are not into tech. If you buy it, you will hate it. I would not get my mom a note 3 and that is why she is using an iPhone, it's simple with minimum features.
This seems more like a first attempt than a fully fleshed out product - more like they are testing the waters. I also wish they could throw inductive charging into the mix - it would be much more user friendly if you could just throw your watch and phone on a pad at your bedside or at work to charge it. I believe that would add some additional bulk so it might be a non-starter this time.
I would still like to see a more integrated flexible display, which Samsung is still working on but hasn't matured yet . I know they are trying to cram a lot of tech in there, but the aesthetics still remind me of those Casio watches people used to use to turn the TVs on or off in the school cafeteria.
I'm not an Apple fan, but I have a feeling that if Apple does release a smartwatch it might be a repeat of what the iPhone did to the smartphone market - ie. bringing a previously considered 'techy-centric' product to the masses. Not because it will necessarily be a great products but because Apple has the mindshare that people will buy/try whatever they release and Apple has a history of making aesthetically pleasing hardware.
Its a first attempt on they believed the rumors Apple will have a watch and wanted to be first even is it was un ugly useless first. If Apple releases a watch the Samsung copy machines will swing into action again.
Samsung too is interested to see what Apple does with this. This watch is simply there as a placeholder so they can claim to be first and not accused of copying when Apple introduces their watch.
That is what I thought, but I meant the whole smart watch thing when I said this. If you are charging $300 for a smart watch its functions better outweigh the looks of an equally priced watch. I don't think Samsung, or anyone for that matter, has displayed knowledge of this. I think Apple might win the Smart Watch war due to this: They will probably make their iWatch a closed source and only allow it to work with other iOS devices, this would lock people into having to buy their product to still use the watch they bought. If Samsung or anyone else implements this and makes it available to be used with non first-party tech then they might lose potential sales.
It seems that samsung got really lazy and just recycled their android experiences so far into a watch form factor. Of course that would hugely decrease the development cost and time, but 5 hours on time for watch?
But considering that even a basic Nike Fuelband costs $149 or more, this one doesn't look THAT expensive though.
How exactly is something that large even considered wearable by anyone who doesn't normally walk with arm weights or protect the blindside of NFL Quarterbacks?
It looks like some lame gag from an 1980's comedy with Yakov Smirnoff: "In Soviet Russia, Watch Wears You!".
There are a number of improvements I'd wished they implement before I'd consider a smartwatch: 1) Transparent e ink display layered on top of always-on watch functionality. 2) Detachable face for easy charging (maybe even wireless charging) & possible use as the "core" to function as a nerve center for a display, turning it into a full phone of tablet. Always have your data on your wrist everywhere you go. 3) A custom SOC (A7?) for better battery life. If you're going to be in the wearable electronics business, might as well create one to use across your entire line. This is just plain LAZY on Samsung's part. 4) Precision laser beam & a rotating diamond saw face in case I ever need to escape from world-conquering-mad-scientist. 5) Damn it, make it pretty! Hopefully well get to see creative uses of bendable displays sooner rather than later.
OK, I'm not entirely unreasonable... just give me 4 of the 5 and I'm in.
(And yes, to stop the screaming rom the peanut gallery, the CURRENT M7 is not really a custom Apple SOC, in the same way that the A4 was not really a custom Apple SOC. It is, however, a placeholder for Apple's intentions, and I expect over time we will see more and more of the low performance low power always-on stuff move to that chip. The finger print sensor for example, the MEMS sensors --- if it's possible to fab them on the same chip as logic --- and perhaps some sniffers for BT and WiFi which give control to the real WiFi and BT chip when they detect what looks like a signal.)
Ah, OK. Fair enough. (It is rather awful the naming conventions in this space, isn't it? Couldn't Apple have called their series of chips the I4, I5, I6, I7?)
I paused for the first picture of the article for a while and thought just what the hell are those slot screws doing on the front of the thing, pointing in all directions like that. They look absolutely horrible and would be a deal-breaker if I was in the market for one these things. Also, the idea of sticking Android in to a watch is ridiculous, at least with currently available tech. No matter how "smart" a watch is, it's supposed to have good battery life, show the time 24/7 and resist the wear of daily usage including bumping your hand into something, washing your hands or taking a shower.
You carry your smartphone with you and now you want to wear an ugly watch connected wireless as well? Does any one wear watches any more except girls as fashion statements? Besides, with all these EMF radiation is it really a good thing to have all these devices around with you on? And what about charging? Sounds like a lot of hassle. Men will be forced to wear man purses just to carry all these things around.
I wear a watch daily, but I tend to prefer mine to be relatively lightweight and low-profile.
I like a watch because it means I can tell time quickly; it usually takes less than 2 seconds, and I can do it while sitting down, or while my hands are busy with other things like washing my hands. Meanwhile, I can't imagine most people being able to take their phone out, check the time, and put it away, in less than 10 seconds, especially as smartphones have trended larger and pants have trended slimmer.
One of my coworkers noted that the divide seems to be about age 25 right now; you hardly see anyone younger than that wearing a watch, whereas many people older than that do.
If I could add a small monochrome LCD screen to my watch to give me the same information as my phone's lockscreen, that would be perfect -- it could tell me if I had new voicemail, or the phone number of the person calling me, so that I would know whether to bother taking my phone out of my pocket. A vibration motor would also be useful, especially since most women carry their phone in their purse, so in circumstances where you don't want your ringtone on, you can still tell if your phone is going off.
I can check the time on my Galaxy S4 Active in around 4 - 5 seconds, using casual movements and not being in a hurry. 2 seconds if I try hard. But then I don't wear skinny jeans.
I dream of the day when there will no longer be any fanboy wars. When isheep and androidbots can graze together in the pastures of comments.
Beyond that, this rather surprisingly positive review got me thinking, I) to the reviewer must have pretty thick wrists to not find the size uncomfortable and ii) he is a real hardware geek who appreciates the engineering of smartphone internals into a watch.
Transparent display... a normal watch underneath... Notifications appear on top of the watch waking up the display when needed.. otherwise it remains a humble normal transparent glass.. A stripped down OS suitable for wearable.. How long? How difficult? Seriously though, can transparent displays be a reality?
Just like when tablets appeared a few years ago: I have to stop and ask: for which use case is this thing in any way useful? Using voice recog is slower than typing, (especially in noisy conditions like anywhere outside your own house or car) it can't be comfortable reading anything from a device attached to your wrist, because you'd have to keep your arm up or your neck bent, and it'll be slower than the phones we spent years and billions making oh so blazing fast.
This is to a smartphone what a tablet is to a laptop: smaller and more portable, but limited in functionality and speed. Sure, a tablet is easier to use on the go, but on a laptop you can get some work done.
It must just be our neverending consumerism. Phone market becomes saturated, and all those billions of marketing budget are spent brainwashing people into thinking this is something they need.
I'd seriously like to see one, just one, proper use case for this little machine. I cant think of a situation where pulling my phone out of my pocket wouldnt be faster and easier.
Tablets kicked out e-readers and netbooks, because most people just wanted something that will do facetube, movies, light games, email and internet and cost less than $400. Some experienced users may want to use office, and that too has been covered quite well by both cheaper ARM devices and more expensive ultrabook convertibles.
So, going by your argument, you are actually making a case for the watch, it's just that we're not quite sure what other products it's going to kick to the curb as of now, just like what happened when tablets first came out.
The way I see it, the only thing this watch might kill is HUD and handset holders inside cars.
like Gregory said I am alarmed that a stay at home mom able to earn $5886 in 1 month on the internet. visit their website............B u z z 5 5 . com open the link without spaces
Totaly agree Fergy. It seems the Apple trolls are out in force and must have received talking points about how applelish the watch looks. Not realizing that Apple has been stealing from others much longer than they've been alive! Apple has not met an inovation that they themselves have either stolen, borrowed or copied from!
How are you apple trolls liking your IOS7 now! I hear and read how smoothly things are going...not...lol
Apple will claim anything is their innovation just to stall the other company from getting their goods to the public! Remember the lawsuits over color and shape of the iphone? Like no one would think of a square phone with buttons? Like they owned the pattent on shapes like a rectangle or circles? Please, from the beginings Apple and Microsoft were perfecting the ways of stealing from each other in order to later do the same to other companies.
You mention using the Pebble regularly in your review of this product, but I don't see that there was ever a review of the Pebble. I would be interested to see a review, especially to give this review some context. I just tried to search for "pebble", so it's possible that it just didn't come up in the search.
first they need to shrink those bezels, and get some sapphire crystal on it. the lugs need to have a gap between them, not just for alternative bands but because it just looks better.
watches are for the most part fashion accessories, unless you work somewhere that doesnt allow cell phones there is no reason to wear one unless it looks cool, rendering this monstrosity useless.
so class it up, maybe have it featured in the next bond movie and youll be in business.
brown leather strap, thin brushed gunmetal bezel and case. yea that would be pretty nice.
"...the company has a tendency to show up early with the wrong solution, but iterate aggressively to the point where it ends up with a very good solution."
There's only a few real things I want and I suspect plenty of people are in the same boat - looks like normal watch (pebble is close but still no cigar) - always on time/date etc. like a normal watch - long battery life (BT 4.0 or whatever) - handles notifications / music controls seamlessly - does running apps
The rest is pointless and just adds proc requirement/lowers battery/makes it chunky (WTF with the camera, speakerphone etc. if you've got to pair it with a phone anyway...). For the form factor the main draw is notifications and changing music tracks without having to drag the phone from your pocket (I can see voice command also being used but seirously most of what you'll be commanding is the phone, and you gotta see the phone screen so might as well interact directly with phone). And unless it pretty much looks like a normal phone and doesn't need to be charged say more than once a week it won't gain widespread acceptance.
Instead of uselessly putting curved-displays into their phones, why doesn't Samsung actually use one of there "features" for something good for once by putting in one of these? Seriously, instead of enabling a phone to turn on when you "roll" it, make it so the watch doesn't seem like a brick.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
70 Comments
Back to Article
et20 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Don't worry.I'm sure they'll figure it out in mere minutes after Apple introduces their iWatch.
colonelclaw - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Indeed. The design of this watch screams 'pre-Apple'. It also screams 'We got to the market 1st!', even though it looks, frankly, ridiculous.In my opinion, something as visible as a watch (this goes for all watches) needs to be an object of beauty, something that when you see on someone else's wrist, you want to get one yourself. Nothing would persuade me to wear this huge plastic lump.
prophet001 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
I hate it when they give out free Kool-Aid. The swarming is always imminent.bji - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Those posts were interesting and insightful. Yours ... not so much.Fergy - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
In what way were they interesting and insightful? The Samsung bashing? The Apple worshiping? Or the opinion that the watch isn't for him so nobody should like it?DaHarder - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Exactly... and those of us who truly love tech can easily see Samsung's effort here as solid and far ahead of the wearable technology game, whereas most other major brands are just sitting by waiting to leach off of the foundation Samsung is laying.steven75 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Far ahead? Please. The *watch* display is mostly off. It's a watch that fails to do what every watch since the beginning of time (see what I did there?) has been able to do. Tell time easily!The "waiting to leach off the foundation Samesung is laying" is also comedy gold.
whyso - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Its so Apple can't sue them over something retarded.RadarTheKat - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I see a lot of comments on these articles that show a lack of comprehension regarding patent law and how it applies. I thought I'd provide a bit of insight here for those who might not be conversant in the topic.Apple's assertion in its lawsuits is that Samsung has copied elements of the iPhone and iPad for which Apple holds several patents. These particular patents are known as design patents. It seems a lot of folks don't take these patents seriously and go as far as to suggest that they should not exist. There is a good reason why they do exist, but to explain this we have to begin with a bit of a side trip and requires that we speak about trademark law. Bear with me on this and hopefully I'll be able to clarify the purpose of design patents and provide some insights into the Apple versus Samsung trial.
Most people are familiar with the idea of a trademark. By way of example, Kellogg, the cereal maker, has a trademark on Tony the Tiger and fought a battle with Exxon over Kellogs' claim that the use of an unnamed tiger in Exxon's advertising violates Kellogg's trademark for Tony the Tiger. Why? For 30 years, Exxon used its tiger character exclusively to promote its gasoline blend, but then, in the 1990's began using it to sell food. Kellogg said consumers are confused by the similarity between the cartoon tigers and may conclude that Kellogg is somehow behind soda, coffee and other items for sale at Exxon's TigerMart stores. The case went back and forth for several years, with Exxon initially winning the case, but ultimately losing on appeal. This case would not seem extraordinary to most people as most folks understand the concept of protecting a unique trademark like Kellogg's Tony the Tiger character.
Now let's look at another case, one that comes closer to the Apple vs Samsung case, but still an application of trademark law. This case is Ferrari vs Robert's Replicas. Back in the 1980's Robert's Replica's was in the business of manufacturing fiberglass kits that replicated the exterior features of Ferrari's Daytona Spyder and Testarossa automobiles. Roberts' copies were called the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe, respectively. Ferrari brought suit against Roberts in March 1988 alleging trademark infringement.
Here's what this case was about: After Ferrari vehicles have been on the market for a number of years, the design of those vehicles acquires what's called "secondary meaning", a concept at the heart of trademark law. Secondary meaning refers to an association of a design, like the design of a Ferrari vehicle, with quality and craftsmanship or other positive attributes one might associate with the Ferrari brand. After a design has acquired secondary meaning, trademark law can be applied to protect the company from those who would copy its designs and use them to promote their own products. Robert's copying of Ferrari's iconic designs could confuse the public and dilute the strength of Ferrari's brand. Just the presence of large numbers of replicas would dilute Ferrari's image of exclusivity, causing financial harm to Ferrari. Trademark law, under the concept of secondary meaning, protected Ferrari. The courts ruled in favor of Ferrari in this case and enjoined Roberts from producing the Miami Spyder and the Miami Coupe.
But how does this relate to design patent law?
The problem with using trademark law to protect a company's designs (under trademark law a product design or package design is referred to as "trade dress") is that a product has to be on the market for a long time before its design acquires secondary meaning (i.e. before the design becomes iconic and is seen by consumers as representative of the company behind the product). When competitors come in immediately after a new product design is introduced and copy it, as is the assertion in the Apple vs Samsung case, the originator of the design doesn't have the luxury of time needed for its product design to acquire secondary meaning in the eyes of consumers. Consumers immediately see the same design from multiple companies and so don't grow to associate the design with the company that originated that design.
This is where design patents come in. Where trademark protection of an iconic product design has no expiration, it takes time for a new product to acquire that protection (as stated above). A design patent offers immediate protection of a new and novel design and for a period of 14 years thereafter, giving a company protection of its original designs until they acquire secondary meaning in the market and therefore protection under trademark law. So the design patent serves a valuable function for companies like Ferrari, and Apple.
Nathillien - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
That's a lot of words to justify rounded corners design "patent" or some other dubious Apple patents like "swipe to do some action" or "bounce back feature".Gorgenapper - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
Can you boil it down for the rest of us dumb dumbs.Netscorer - Monday, October 7, 2013 - link
Very interesting piece of information in history of design patents. But the problem many see in the Apple wars was not that they used design patents to protect their products in the first place, but how they used them. When you design something unique, that design should be protected, no doubt. But when you design a squarish blob with rounded corners and claim it to be unique, that's the problem. Companies have other means of distinguishing their products when using mundane form and design patterns. It's called logo. Company logo is always unique, protected by multiple laws and is easy way to distinguish one product from another. You don't see Drink manufacturers, for example, squabbling about bottle shapes in general. yes, there are some unique bottle shapes, but 99% of all bottles look the same. What distinguishes them one from the other, of course is branding, i.e. using color palette and logo to provide quick identification and association with consumers. Apple, just by the fact of being first to market, decided, basically, to patent generic bottle of smartphone shapes. Then it tried to SELECTIVELY sue other vendors who obviously stepped into the same common sense design decision.digitalgriffin - Monday, October 7, 2013 - link
Patents also can't be frivolous or vague, and have in some way be unique and not common sense.Navigating apps through gestures is nothing new or unique. Finger gestures control have been around for years ever since the digitizing tablet was invented. Saying a left swipe to bounce back it about as patentable as me saying me scratching my ass is trademark motion.
LostViking - Friday, October 11, 2013 - link
Everyone understands that these patents are great for big, powerful companies. Some of us just feel the user is more important.And before you say it, I don't believe that it would be impossible to make money selling phones in a world where you couldn't patent design.
1ndian - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
So, who did Samsung copy in SSD, Memory, Laptops, Home Appliances, TV, Medical Equipments, Displays, Cameras, Ship building, etc.? Let's go back and say Apple copied GUI from XEROX. They do make some good products and some crappy products. But please don't talk like everything started with iPhone or Applefri2219 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
GE, Toshiba, Intel, Fujitsu, Matsushita, Toshiba, Sharp, Siemens, Bell Labs, and just about anyone else they thought could make them a buck. Samsung has a sordid history of sleaze, including but not limited to, repeated convictions for bribery, price fixing, astroturfing, and Tax Evasion.If that's too much history for the tldr in you, just look at how many IP theft suits aside from Apple Samsung is facing at the present.
BC2009 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Dyson vacuums were just copied by Samsung too.chrnochime - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Lack of research FTW!!cyberguyz - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
You mean after Apple COPIES their watch don't you?Tech lover12345 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I've stood in line for the iPhone , 3G, 3GS, 4, 4s, and ordered the iPhone 5. I just got the note 3 and it can do things I didn't know was possible. The note 3 makes my iPhone 5 seem like a Motorola razor flip phone. Apple has really fallen way way behind. All of these years I though Apple was the best, and all the arguments I've had with people that Apple was better. Apple Is a good phone for text and music and making phone calls and that is about it bite the note 3 can do way way more. It's not even fair to call the iPhone a smart phone compared to the note. But I must say, if you don't know how to use a computer, stick with the iPhone. The note 3 is too advance for people who are not into tech. If you buy it, you will hate it. I would not get my mom a note 3 and that is why she is using an iPhone, it's simple with minimum features.LostViking - Friday, October 11, 2013 - link
And don't you worry. As soon as Apple releases a watch, any other wrist worn device with a screen will immediately become a blatant Apple ripoff ;)misfit410 - Friday, October 18, 2013 - link
When the iWatch SP launches I'm going to hold out for the iWatch UP.nathanddrews - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
"Calling Dick Tracy! Come in, Dick Tracy!"I would feel awesome wearing this. XD
brshoemak - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
This seems more like a first attempt than a fully fleshed out product - more like they are testing the waters. I also wish they could throw inductive charging into the mix - it would be much more user friendly if you could just throw your watch and phone on a pad at your bedside or at work to charge it. I believe that would add some additional bulk so it might be a non-starter this time.I would still like to see a more integrated flexible display, which Samsung is still working on but hasn't matured yet . I know they are trying to cram a lot of tech in there, but the aesthetics still remind me of those Casio watches people used to use to turn the TVs on or off in the school cafeteria.
I'm not an Apple fan, but I have a feeling that if Apple does release a smartwatch it might be a repeat of what the iPhone did to the smartphone market - ie. bringing a previously considered 'techy-centric' product to the masses. Not because it will necessarily be a great products but because Apple has the mindshare that people will buy/try whatever they release and Apple has a history of making aesthetically pleasing hardware.
darwinosx - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Its a first attempt on they believed the rumors Apple will have a watch and wanted to be first even is it was un ugly useless first.If Apple releases a watch the Samsung copy machines will swing into action again.
purerice - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
hear hear! Here's waiting for Apple's iNecklace rumors followed in 6 months by another relatively unusable device by Samsung.pSupaNova - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
You do know that Sony are on their second generation of Android smart watches.They could be replying to that now awaking giant.
ISwearImCool - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
I am disappointed that you didn't side load chrome and do your standard battery test.I'm joking. Sweet review as usual.
OddlyShapedTree - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
I'm not yet sold on this yet. I'm interested to see what Apple does with this. It's going to take a lot more to take the Movado off my wrist.FATCamaro - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Samsung too is interested to see what Apple does with this. This watch is simply there as a placeholder so they can claim to be first and not accused of copying when Apple introduces their watch.OddlyShapedTree - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
That is what I thought, but I meant the whole smart watch thing when I said this. If you are charging $300 for a smart watch its functions better outweigh the looks of an equally priced watch. I don't think Samsung, or anyone for that matter, has displayed knowledge of this. I think Apple might win the Smart Watch war due to this:They will probably make their iWatch a closed source and only allow it to work with other iOS devices, this would lock people into having to buy their product to still use the watch they bought. If Samsung or anyone else implements this and makes it available to be used with non first-party tech then they might lose potential sales.
steven75 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
You mean like how the Gear only works so far with two Samsung devices?OddlyShapedTree - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
They have said they plan on making it work with other devices, just not so tightly.bleh0 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
none of the currently available smartwatches seem all that useful right now.nerd1 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
It seems that samsung got really lazy and just recycled their android experiences so far into a watch form factor. Of course that would hugely decrease the development cost and time, but 5 hours on time for watch?But considering that even a basic Nike Fuelband costs $149 or more, this one doesn't look THAT expensive though.
hwoalang - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
watch should be water proof.we wash hands all the time. it's must!!!!
i have feeling a lot of users will have liquid damage issue.
brshoemak - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Apple's smartwatch should be fine then, I heard iOS 7 waterproofs your device, ;)fri2219 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
How exactly is something that large even considered wearable by anyone who doesn't normally walk with arm weights or protect the blindside of NFL Quarterbacks?It looks like some lame gag from an 1980's comedy with Yakov Smirnoff: "In Soviet Russia, Watch Wears You!".
Graag - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
This. I mean, do they even want to sell these to *women?*tech4tac - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
There are a number of improvements I'd wished they implement before I'd consider a smartwatch:1) Transparent e ink display layered on top of always-on watch functionality.
2) Detachable face for easy charging (maybe even wireless charging) & possible use as the "core" to function as a nerve center for a display, turning it into a full phone of tablet. Always have your data on your wrist everywhere you go.
3) A custom SOC (A7?) for better battery life. If you're going to be in the wearable electronics business, might as well create one to use across your entire line. This is just plain LAZY on Samsung's part.
4) Precision laser beam & a rotating diamond saw face in case I ever need to escape from world-conquering-mad-scientist.
5) Damn it, make it pretty! Hopefully well get to see creative uses of bendable displays sooner rather than later.
OK, I'm not entirely unreasonable... just give me 4 of the 5 and I'm in.
name99 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
You mean M7 as the low power chip, not A7.(And yes, to stop the screaming rom the peanut gallery, the CURRENT M7 is not really a custom Apple SOC, in the same way that the A4 was not really a custom Apple SOC.
It is, however, a placeholder for Apple's intentions, and I expect over time we will see more and more of the low performance low power always-on stuff move to that chip. The finger print sensor for example, the MEMS sensors --- if it's possible to fab them on the same chip as logic --- and perhaps some sniffers for BT and WiFi which give control to the real WiFi and BT chip when they detect what looks like a signal.)
tech4tac - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
No, I do mean the Cortex-A7. It's an ARM design for low power to run as a companion with or without the Cortex-A15.name99 - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
Ah, OK. Fair enough.(It is rather awful the naming conventions in this space, isn't it? Couldn't Apple have called their series of chips the I4, I5, I6, I7?)
phoenix_rizzen - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
It's only awful when people try to shorten things and drop off important information.Apple A7 vs Cortex-A7 vs A7.
Just saying "A7" is meaningless, especially when the name of the ARM chip is Cortex-A7 (note the hyphen).
Kepe - Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - link
I paused for the first picture of the article for a while and thought just what the hell are those slot screws doing on the front of the thing, pointing in all directions like that. They look absolutely horrible and would be a deal-breaker if I was in the market for one these things. Also, the idea of sticking Android in to a watch is ridiculous, at least with currently available tech. No matter how "smart" a watch is, it's supposed to have good battery life, show the time 24/7 and resist the wear of daily usage including bumping your hand into something, washing your hands or taking a shower.Spaz888 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
You carry your smartphone with you and now you want to wear an ugly watch connected wireless as well? Does any one wear watches any more except girls as fashion statements? Besides, with all these EMF radiation is it really a good thing to have all these devices around with you on? And what about charging? Sounds like a lot of hassle. Men will be forced to wear man purses just to carry all these things around.UNHchabo - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
I wear a watch daily, but I tend to prefer mine to be relatively lightweight and low-profile.I like a watch because it means I can tell time quickly; it usually takes less than 2 seconds, and I can do it while sitting down, or while my hands are busy with other things like washing my hands. Meanwhile, I can't imagine most people being able to take their phone out, check the time, and put it away, in less than 10 seconds, especially as smartphones have trended larger and pants have trended slimmer.
One of my coworkers noted that the divide seems to be about age 25 right now; you hardly see anyone younger than that wearing a watch, whereas many people older than that do.
If I could add a small monochrome LCD screen to my watch to give me the same information as my phone's lockscreen, that would be perfect -- it could tell me if I had new voicemail, or the phone number of the person calling me, so that I would know whether to bother taking my phone out of my pocket. A vibration motor would also be useful, especially since most women carry their phone in their purse, so in circumstances where you don't want your ringtone on, you can still tell if your phone is going off.
Gorgenapper - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
I can check the time on my Galaxy S4 Active in around 4 - 5 seconds, using casual movements and not being in a hurry. 2 seconds if I try hard. But then I don't wear skinny jeans.gnx - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
I dream of the day when there will no longer be any fanboy wars. When isheep and androidbots can graze together in the pastures of comments.Beyond that, this rather surprisingly positive review got me thinking, I) to the reviewer must have pretty thick wrists to not find the size uncomfortable and ii) he is a real hardware geek who appreciates the engineering of smartphone internals into a watch.
meacupla - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Right...but I ditched my wrist watch because my phone kept time better and I don't like wearing bulky wrist watches to start with.
Why doesn't samsung use their flexible OLED screen in something thinner and more, flexible?
rituraj - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Transparent display... a normal watch underneath...Notifications appear on top of the watch waking up the display when needed.. otherwise it remains a humble normal transparent glass..
A stripped down OS suitable for wearable..
How long? How difficult?
Seriously though, can transparent displays be a reality?
Origin64 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Just like when tablets appeared a few years ago: I have to stop and ask: for which use case is this thing in any way useful? Using voice recog is slower than typing, (especially in noisy conditions like anywhere outside your own house or car) it can't be comfortable reading anything from a device attached to your wrist, because you'd have to keep your arm up or your neck bent, and it'll be slower than the phones we spent years and billions making oh so blazing fast.This is to a smartphone what a tablet is to a laptop: smaller and more portable, but limited in functionality and speed. Sure, a tablet is easier to use on the go, but on a laptop you can get some work done.
It must just be our neverending consumerism. Phone market becomes saturated, and all those billions of marketing budget are spent brainwashing people into thinking this is something they need.
I'd seriously like to see one, just one, proper use case for this little machine. I cant think of a situation where pulling my phone out of my pocket wouldnt be faster and easier.
meacupla - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
There's just one problem with your argument.Tablets kicked out e-readers and netbooks, because most people just wanted something that will do facetube, movies, light games, email and internet and cost less than $400.
Some experienced users may want to use office, and that too has been covered quite well by both cheaper ARM devices and more expensive ultrabook convertibles.
So, going by your argument, you are actually making a case for the watch, it's just that we're not quite sure what other products it's going to kick to the curb as of now, just like what happened when tablets first came out.
The way I see it, the only thing this watch might kill is HUD and handset holders inside cars.
Graag - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Tablets haven't kicked out e-readers, at all. E-readers are still better at reading most things than tablets.Netbooks, on the other hand, are worse at everything.
Kathrine647 - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
like Gregory said I am alarmed that a stay at home mom able to earn $5886 in 1 month on the internet. visit their website............B u z z 5 5 . com open the link without spacesMaikal - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Totaly agree Fergy. It seems the Apple trolls are out in force and must have received talking points about how applelish the watch looks. Not realizing that Apple has been stealing from others much longer than they've been alive! Apple has not met an inovation that they themselves have either stolen, borrowed or copied from!How are you apple trolls liking your IOS7 now! I hear and read how smoothly things are going...not...lol
Maikal - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Apple will claim anything is their innovation just to stall the other company from getting their goods to the public! Remember the lawsuits over color and shape of the iphone? Like no one would think of a square phone with buttons? Like they owned the pattent on shapes like a rectangle or circles? Please, from the beginings Apple and Microsoft were perfecting the ways of stealing from each other in order to later do the same to other companies.jefeweiss - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
You mention using the Pebble regularly in your review of this product, but I don't see that there was ever a review of the Pebble. I would be interested to see a review, especially to give this review some context. I just tried to search for "pebble", so it's possible that it just didn't come up in the search.ASEdouardD - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
I suppose Samsung made an effort design wise here, but it's still very ugly.phoenix_rizzen - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
So, how does it feel/look when worn properly, aka with the face on the flat part of your wrist (the bottom)?SilthDraeth - Wednesday, October 2, 2013 - link
Persistent clock on smart phones? I have a Note 2, and I do not know of such a feature. Is this not available on the Note 2?Also, I would be warry of screen burn in. I have noticed a bit of it on my Note's screen.
snarfbot - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
first they need to shrink those bezels, and get some sapphire crystal on it. the lugs need to have a gap between them, not just for alternative bands but because it just looks better.watches are for the most part fashion accessories, unless you work somewhere that doesnt allow cell phones there is no reason to wear one unless it looks cool, rendering this monstrosity useless.
so class it up, maybe have it featured in the next bond movie and youll be in business.
brown leather strap, thin brushed gunmetal bezel and case. yea that would be pretty nice.
risus - Monday, October 7, 2013 - link
I love those suggestions. I'm a huge sapphire crystal fan. I'm just afraid of what that price tag may look like :-/av_av - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
Kudos for the Galactica reference :)greg zx - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
"...the company has a tendency to show up early with the wrong solution, but iterate aggressively to the point where it ends up with a very good solution."You misspelled "imitate".
Hammi - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
Does this have the benchmark 'optimizations' enabled like the rest of the Samsung gear?wintermute000 - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
There's only a few real things I want and I suspect plenty of people are in the same boat- looks like normal watch (pebble is close but still no cigar)
- always on time/date etc. like a normal watch
- long battery life (BT 4.0 or whatever)
- handles notifications / music controls seamlessly
- does running apps
The rest is pointless and just adds proc requirement/lowers battery/makes it chunky (WTF with the camera, speakerphone etc. if you've got to pair it with a phone anyway...). For the form factor the main draw is notifications and changing music tracks without having to drag the phone from your pocket (I can see voice command also being used but seirously most of what you'll be commanding is the phone, and you gotta see the phone screen so might as well interact directly with phone). And unless it pretty much looks like a normal phone and doesn't need to be charged say more than once a week it won't gain widespread acceptance.
jameskatt - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
Anyone who wears this is a geek. Simple.p05esto - Monday, October 7, 2013 - link
Horrible, I wouldn't wear that if you paid me hjundreds of dollars. Not only is it ugly.... but WHY?wbensky - Sunday, November 10, 2013 - link
Instead of uselessly putting curved-displays into their phones, why doesn't Samsung actually use one of there "features" for something good for once by putting in one of these? Seriously, instead of enabling a phone to turn on when you "roll" it, make it so the watch doesn't seem like a brick.