The Sony Smartwatch 3 is nothing like the other smart watches on the market (I'd recommend seeing a ranking like http://www.topreport.org/wearable/ instead).
The fact that it is (from what I've seen) the first Android Wear device with functioning GPS seems to get swept under the carpet and I have no idea why.
Also, the only one with transflective display. It's weird, very few media outlets even mention it, let alone make as big of a deal as it deserves. This is hands down the best sports Android Wear watch just because of those 2 features, and it's waterproof enough to go swimming with it.
I keep thinking the same thing. Samsung now has the Gear S which I think has a built-in gps? It's hard to tell because so little is said about that. And the Apple Watch, which was the one I was waiting for, thinking it would finally have both a GPS and a HRM does not have built-in GPS and starts at $350(?!). I can't believe that the bloggers and media do not understand that some of us out there DO NOT WANT TO ALSO CARRY A PHONE WHEN WORKING OUT. What I do is carry an ipod Nano and then I have the Garmin 210 which has GPS and HRM, but I have to wear the strap. The holy grail, which I thought Apple would unveil yesterday, has all of these things (Music stored with bluetooth headset functionality would be great too - no nano then either). It seems like the Gear S and now this Sony watch are the ones I'll be looking at.
Wow, this was disappointing. Not the devices, but the article. As Cleargrey mentions, this is the first Android Wear device with built-in GPS, which is a huge improvement to its usability. And you don't even bother to mention it? That's just lazy journalism. And is it really any larger than competing devices? Sure, it's not as stylish as the Moto 360, but it looks better to me than the Gear Live and the G Watch.
The Smartband Talk on the other hand is first and foremost an activity tracker (step counting and so on), and as such the addition of an e-paper display looks awesome. As an owner of the original Smartband (it came bundled with my Z2) I can say that adding a small, low-power display to a device like this, without taking it into full-on smartwatch territory, sounds great (especially when combined with the clever remote control features that Sony tends to put into these things). I'm more sceptical of the mic/speaker, as I don't see the need, but then again others who call more than I do might have different opinions.
I'm actually disappointed with the fact that Android Wear is really less capable than SONY's SmartWatch 2 firmware.
SONY SmartWatch 2 is able to do soooo many things with so modest computing power and also has a multi-icon menu.
The battery life is over a week if you shut it down in the evening, when you get home and you actually don't need it until the morning when you leave.
Android Wear is such a disappointment at its current stage. and I'm amazed by the fact that SONY didn't continue to develop its own platform.
Who knows, maybe SmartWatch 3 is just SONY getting in line with the market and offering just the same software functionality for less money and later the company will followup with a high-end SmartWatch Pro or something based on its own platform.
Awful review. You 'think people will find better options from the competition'? What are they? You didnt even go into details of what these devices can do so how can you say theres better options? Such a half-assed lazy review imo.
I'm surprised you didn't go into more indeoth about this. In addition to what others have mentioned (transreflective display and GPS) you haven't explored why it would make sense for it to be the way it is (being sports orientated??)
The fact that it has a GPS chip and also (I've read) that you can use the 4gb nand as local storage to play music. Either one means you can leave the phone at home for running, cycling sessions.
Come on guys. I feel like the Sony smartwatch isn't really getting the discussion it needs.
For any wrist device to succeed, it has to first and foremost BE jewelry. The consumer has to want to wear one without consideration of what it does. After all, even if one wears a watch, how often does one use it to tell time particularly when one has a smartphone that shows the time?? The watch has for years been simply jewelry first, function second. This is why people aspire to wear $30,000 Rolex watches and other brands. Even men's watches are first and foremost jewelry. This is why men buy several of them. If you had to consider function first, you would only have one worn out watch not several.
These attempts at wearables all fail because they are not jewelry first.
Apple may be the exception. It has many leaders from the fashion and design industry working at Apple. It would not surprise me to see Tim Cook introduce a woman, Angela Ahrendts, the former CEO of Burberry, who now is the senior vice president of retail and online stores at Apple, and have her introduce the iWatch, having tested the beta products herself. If she approves of the iWatch, then there is no doubt the iWatch is going to succeed.
If a smartwatch or wearable is going to succeed, it has to attract women first. And women will have to approve of men wearing it. If women aren't attracted to men wearing a smartwatch, then the smartwatch fails.
This is quite different an aspiration from any other smartwatch manufacturer. For them, the smartwatch or wearable has to be attractive to geeks first. Then greeks have to approve of other geeks wearing them.
You may be right that they won't have commercial success unless they are considered jewelry. I for one don't have any $30,000 watches or even any cars I've paid that much for although some of them were worth much more than that when they were new. The SmartBand Talk looks like it might be a close match to my wants if the price is right. I am willing to pay a fair price for a useful electronic device; but have no interest in paying ANY price for jewelry.
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
15 Comments
Back to Article
Andrei Frumusanu - Thursday, September 4, 2014 - link
I'll be doing the Z post tomorrow as I'm going to bed now.ridhobtmn - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
where's the promised article. man?55Tan - Tuesday, December 9, 2014 - link
The Sony Smartwatch 3 is nothing like the other smart watches on the market (I'd recommend seeing a ranking like http://www.topreport.org/wearable/ instead).Cleargrey - Thursday, September 4, 2014 - link
The fact that it is (from what I've seen) the first Android Wear device with functioning GPS seems to get swept under the carpet and I have no idea why.andy o - Friday, September 5, 2014 - link
Also, the only one with transflective display. It's weird, very few media outlets even mention it, let alone make as big of a deal as it deserves. This is hands down the best sports Android Wear watch just because of those 2 features, and it's waterproof enough to go swimming with it.cine229 - Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - link
I keep thinking the same thing. Samsung now has the Gear S which I think has a built-in gps? It's hard to tell because so little is said about that. And the Apple Watch, which was the one I was waiting for, thinking it would finally have both a GPS and a HRM does not have built-in GPS and starts at $350(?!). I can't believe that the bloggers and media do not understand that some of us out there DO NOT WANT TO ALSO CARRY A PHONE WHEN WORKING OUT. What I do is carry an ipod Nano and then I have the Garmin 210 which has GPS and HRM, but I have to wear the strap. The holy grail, which I thought Apple would unveil yesterday, has all of these things (Music stored with bluetooth headset functionality would be great too - no nano then either). It seems like the Gear S and now this Sony watch are the ones I'll be looking at.darth415 - Friday, September 5, 2014 - link
The rubber build leads me to presume it will be quite durable. Was it really that disappointing?Valantar - Friday, September 5, 2014 - link
Wow, this was disappointing. Not the devices, but the article. As Cleargrey mentions, this is the first Android Wear device with built-in GPS, which is a huge improvement to its usability. And you don't even bother to mention it? That's just lazy journalism. And is it really any larger than competing devices? Sure, it's not as stylish as the Moto 360, but it looks better to me than the Gear Live and the G Watch.The Smartband Talk on the other hand is first and foremost an activity tracker (step counting and so on), and as such the addition of an e-paper display looks awesome. As an owner of the original Smartband (it came bundled with my Z2) I can say that adding a small, low-power display to a device like this, without taking it into full-on smartwatch territory, sounds great (especially when combined with the clever remote control features that Sony tends to put into these things). I'm more sceptical of the mic/speaker, as I don't see the need, but then again others who call more than I do might have different opinions.
East17 - Friday, September 5, 2014 - link
I'm actually disappointed with the fact that Android Wear is really less capable than SONY's SmartWatch 2 firmware.SONY SmartWatch 2 is able to do soooo many things with so modest computing power and also has a multi-icon menu.
The battery life is over a week if you shut it down in the evening, when you get home and you actually don't need it until the morning when you leave.
Android Wear is such a disappointment at its current stage. and I'm amazed by the fact that SONY didn't continue to develop its own platform.
Who knows, maybe SmartWatch 3 is just SONY getting in line with the market and offering just the same software functionality for less money and later the company will followup with a high-end SmartWatch Pro or something based on its own platform.
shuman - Friday, September 5, 2014 - link
So if you're being sent these devices to review, why aren't you reviewing them regardless if your biased opinion is intrigued?Poor review.
gnu77 - Friday, September 5, 2014 - link
Awful review. You 'think people will find better options from the competition'? What are they? You didnt even go into details of what these devices can do so how can you say theres better options? Such a half-assed lazy review imo.tremblingwater - Saturday, September 6, 2014 - link
I'm surprised you didn't go into more indeoth about this. In addition to what others have mentioned (transreflective display and GPS) you haven't explored why it would make sense for it to be the way it is (being sports orientated??)The fact that it has a GPS chip and also (I've read) that you can use the 4gb nand as local storage to play music. Either one means you can leave the phone at home for running, cycling sessions.
Come on guys. I feel like the Sony smartwatch isn't really getting the discussion it needs.
jameskatt - Sunday, September 7, 2014 - link
For any wrist device to succeed, it has to first and foremost BE jewelry. The consumer has to want to wear one without consideration of what it does. After all, even if one wears a watch, how often does one use it to tell time particularly when one has a smartphone that shows the time?? The watch has for years been simply jewelry first, function second. This is why people aspire to wear $30,000 Rolex watches and other brands. Even men's watches are first and foremost jewelry. This is why men buy several of them. If you had to consider function first, you would only have one worn out watch not several.These attempts at wearables all fail because they are not jewelry first.
Apple may be the exception. It has many leaders from the fashion and design industry working at Apple. It would not surprise me to see Tim Cook introduce a woman, Angela Ahrendts, the former CEO of Burberry, who now is the senior vice president of retail and online stores at Apple, and have her introduce the iWatch, having tested the beta products herself. If she approves of the iWatch, then there is no doubt the iWatch is going to succeed.
If a smartwatch or wearable is going to succeed, it has to attract women first. And women will have to approve of men wearing it. If women aren't attracted to men wearing a smartwatch, then the smartwatch fails.
This is quite different an aspiration from any other smartwatch manufacturer. For them, the smartwatch or wearable has to be attractive to geeks first. Then greeks have to approve of other geeks wearing them.
enderscottcard - Wednesday, September 24, 2014 - link
You may be right that they won't have commercial success unless they are considered jewelry. I for one don't have any $30,000 watches or even any cars I've paid that much for although some of them were worth much more than that when they were new. The SmartBand Talk looks like it might be a close match to my wants if the price is right. I am willing to pay a fair price for a useful electronic device; but have no interest in paying ANY price for jewelry.ffh2303 - Thursday, September 11, 2014 - link
Still waiting for the post on the Z3 phones and tablets.I mean seriously,do you guys hate Sony or something?