ROFL you need to find another job. I can't believe that you keep thinking Apple did a good job. You don't even understand dumbwatches. Do anything else, you just have no vision at all and lack objectivity.
Quote - "As a result of the immature state of the market, the industry as a whole can't rely on consumer feedback either"
Stop flaming and read/understand the article. The above quote plainly states the writers feelings and he must be considered a consumer also in this context.
This is from the same reviewer that claimed the Apple watch was the best watch/wearable on the market despite and then plainly stated he hasn't reviewed any of the competitors' products.
He's not wrong. Joshua's reviews/articles are a joke.
The articles on AnandTech as a whole have dipped in quality considerably. Mobile product reviews have been poor ever since Klug left, and Anand shortly after. More objectivity, not pandering. Call things as you see them, and if you've never used a product like it before (a watch), then that should probably be heavily weighed when reaching any and all conclusions. Comments like this:
"Similarly, things like always-on display are surprisingly not strictly necessary."
Are utterly idiotic when you consider how wonky gesture-based motions are to respond given something like body positioning -- good luck checking the time on your smartwatch while lying in bed. If it doesn't make it easier, it makes it more difficult. And given the smartwatches thus far only replicate smartphone functionality but add only slightly more convenience -- pulling your phone out of your pocket -- then you have to question what the point of these wearables is in the first place.
On the other hand, I feel AnandTech's mobile products reviews have been poor since, um, ever. Joshua Ho's articles feel very similar to Brian Klug's and Anand's to an extent. Thankfully they now have Andrei Frumusanu, whose reviews have always been a fantastic read.
battery life doesn't need to be compared to watches, but it's still an important parameter as people won't want to keep up with the battery life of not just one, but TWO devices.
Other than that, the issue is that smartwatches are simply useless when you can take the smartphone out of your pocket. Phones killed watches, that means people don't care about pulling stuff out of their pocket. After all, pocket watches were used extensively.
The only way I see for smartwatches to take hold beyond fitness tracking, is if they can remove the need to take the phone out of your pocket to quickfire answers in whatsapp. But talking to your smartwatch doesn't provide privacy so that's an issue.
"smartwatches are simply useless when you can take the smartphone out of your pocket". This is precisely WHERE smartwatch designers need to focus. There are many use cases where you can't have a phone with you or can't take it out of your pocket/purse. Smartwatches are perfect for these situations. Think of an outfit with no pockets (an evening dress for example), think of jobs where you use both hands (construction), think of situations where it is awkward or impractical to pull out a phone (phablets while you are sitting can be impossible to get out of jean pockets or an important meeting), think of situations where you can't bring a phone (many top-secret companies such as military contractors or power plants) or don't get any phone reception so you probably don't have your phone (large buildings).
Sadly virtually all current smartwatches (and even the bigger wearables category) are designed assuming that you do have your phone with you and you can pull you phone out. The Jawbone wearables are perfect examples, without a smartphone with you, you get NO benefit of them.
As soon as smartwatch makers begin to think of the situations where you want data but can't simply take out a smartphone, then they'll have a product. Until then, they'll be niche only. If it relies heavilly on a phone that you already have, why have a smartwatch? Give us solutions for use cases where you can't use the phone.
A smart watch is definitely not a viable option in any area where top secret information is being handled, as these areas require you to remove any device capable of transmitting data and/or recording audio/video/images before entering. And nobody working construction or maintenance is going to want or need to use their device in a situation where both hands are being used, especially when these jobs usually require more than one person to be present for safety reasons. And without a data connection (or a phone to tie into), a lot of these smart watches become dumb watches with little added functionality over a phone or standard watch.
Simply put, there still not many scenarios where a smart watch offers practical functionality where a phone or standard watch does not. Fitness tracking is honestly the only thing I can think of where I would use a smart watch regularly, but even then you're addressing a niche market as not everyone who stays fit is interested in analyzing the data from their workout afterwards. And really, I get enough hipster street cred with my Casio F91 to not have to worry about the fashion benefits of a smart watch.
It really takes a special sort of chutzpah to insist that a wrist computer is worthless even though: - the writer has never used one AND - the entire history of electronics for the past 60+ years is of devices becoming ever smaller, cheaper, and closer to us.
A smartwatch is not JUST a timekeeper AND it is not just a health monitor (though it does both of those and can do them very well if appropriately designed). It also presents other similar timely information (for example temperature), configured as you choose.
On the one hand it's also a push destination, a target for notifications of all sorts which is always with you, so that you can see whether you want to respond to a particular new text message or whatever.
On the other hand, it is ALSO a device that can present answers to reasonable questions (where "reasonable") will of course keep growing with time. For example: "Hey Siri how many Taiwan Dollars in a dollar?" Like so many other things, it takes time to get used to this, to appreciate just how many answers you can get just by asking your wrist.
But, by all means scoff. It was visionaries like you who gave us WAP, and who were sure that the important uses for home computers were filing recipes and playing board games. It's one thing to know intellectually that Moore's law exists; it is (apparently) a much rarer skill to translate that knowledge into some sort of "you mean a watch will ALSO get better? It's ALSO made of transistors? It also uses fabs and micro-architecture and compilers and servers? Who would have thought?"
I bought my smartwatch largely for the notifications... I spend all day either sitting at a computer, dealing with clients, or messing with hardware (or all three at once); and during two of those I'd rather avoid taking out my phone because it either makes the client feel ignored or it's just inconvenient.
Really didn't think I'd use voice search more thru the watch, never used it much on my phone after all, but I'm coming around on that and I've found it genuinely useful at times.
Basically, smart watches need to cherry pick the things that a smartphone either can't do (health monitoring, silent alarms), is impractical to do (identification), or which can otherwise enhance what a smart phone already does, as in act as a second on-the-fly display for checking time, gps directions, etc.
Price is also a huge issue, they don't provide much more functionality than a normal watch. Normal watches retail for $20, you can get a steel one with a leather strap for $50 easily. Other than that the real question is do we really need something that fits between a smartphone and a watch? Most people have already give up watches, what is there that would make us go back?
No, price is not a huge issue, just as it’s not (and never was) a huge issue with smartphones. People who only have $50 to spare don’t need and probably don’t want a smartwatch. It’s, to a degree, a lifestyle product, just as normal watches are (especially since the era of mobile phones).
And if you really, really need a smartwatch (either for sports activities, or the notifications, or anything else that they offer), you are going to be okay with paying a couple hundred bucks.
I see an awful lot of people walking around wearing watches...to say that the traditional watch is dead I think is premature and frankly just incorrect.
It’s dead as the everyman’s tool that shows what time it is. In other words, Swatch is going to have an ever harder time selling their plastic watches.
As a lifestyle or fashion product, it will likely take a looong time for it to die. And I don’t expect the watch as a luxury product to go away anytime soon.
We are at the early adopter phase for smartwatches. That said:
--I don't care about an always on screen, but I do need it to be on when I look at it. No one has gotten this right yet. The wrist flicking on the iWatch is close --It needs to be comfortable to wear --It needs to be either inexpensive (~$100) OR very future proof 4 to 5 year life span, I don't feel certain that current Apple or Google smartwatches will be useful in that time frame, $300-$600 on something that's not going to work well in a year or two sucks --waterproof, I would ruin an iWatch by jumping in a pool. This is why I did not buy a Fitbit --a week of battery life, or at least a few days, I'm going to forget to charge it some nights, that's annoying enough with a phone --I want the watch face to just be time and notifications with simple apps, I think both Apple and Google almost have this right --I want it to be device ecosystem independent, which probably means I can't get an iWatch
It sounds like you would be more interested in a Pebble as opposed to an Apple/Google smartwatch. Unfortunately Anandtech hasn't really mentioned them in the recent smartwatch articles which is a shame, but there is this article from February: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9005/pebble-announce...
It doesn't quite fit all your criteria (still a little too expensive, only 50m water resistant but could probably survive a dip in the pool), but it does a much better job than most of the other smart watches currently available.
- Apple Watch (aWatch, not iWatch) screen lights up by wrist attitude, not flicking. Flicking is Pebble.
- The aWatch sports band is generally considered to be the most comfortable watch strap around. (Which is a pretty pathetic indictment of traditional watch manufacturers; kinda the same way car manufacturers make vastly more comfortable seats than the vast bulk of furniture manufacturers...) This appears to be because the polymer used has a coefficient of thermal expansion that pretty closes matches the human body.
- Price I can't help you with. You get what you pay for. If you can't afford something new, wait a year and buy one from someone upgrading.
- aWatch is generally considered to be waterproof enough for both showering and swimming. Obviously the touch screen will not operate well when wet; and if in the ocean it should be cleaned afterwards to limit the risk of salt water corrosion. http://furbo.org/2015/07/14/a-watch-water-and-work...
- worrying about battery life is just not a big deal. Every person who actually owns one will tell you that. Conversely, someone who doesn't own an aWatch but insists on constantly bitching about the battery life is the exact same person who five years ago was bitching about SD cards and sealed-in batteries --- the guy who won't use an Apple product for religious reasons, but wants to pretend to the world that he's doing so on deeply rational grounds.
- can't help you with "device ecosystem independent" since to me that sounds a whole lot like what I just said above. You can get a Pebble which is equally limited on both Android and iOS, I guess. I had a Pebble for a year before I got my aWatch. It does the job, yes, but the transition is like moving from a Treo to an iPhone. Sure, if you look at the specs, they're both smartphones that supposedly do the same sort of thing; but in actual usage one is vastly more capable and more pleasant to use than the other.
You mention that WatchOS is the best watch OS (ha...) around. This made me very curious, but you don't provide any motivation in this article. Could you provide a link to the reasoning behind this? Has there previously been any comparison that I missed perhaps?
Stop calling it a "smart watch" and you might see the markets and the utility.
You make it abundantly clear that the remaining Watch wearers use their watch as fashion statement. This kind of fashion statement was ubiquitous but in the 21st century it is not enough to be able to tell time, but you need to be connected (to other people - cell phone; to the world's information / Internet - smart phone). so the new ubiquitous fashion statement is a smart phone.
Now call the thing a wrist computer and you are addressing one market. Those that want a computer and its connectivity (voice, data, GPS) and want it in ever smaller forms (PC, desktop, laptop, smart phone, wrist computer). Then you also get rid of the current form and display restrictions and understand that a fitbit is essentially a one function version of the thing most people call a smart watch. Now think of single applications you could do with something at your wrist, where speed or the the ability to point or measure what you do with your hand is important. Point and "see" a product, price tag, location, etc. take a quick picture, voice note, play back notes and may be a calendar with vibrating reminder, and navigation capability.
Also look at it as a sensor extension to my pocket computer, so I don't have to take this "smart phone" out of my pocket. I should be able to use this as my unlock for the phone, my gesture sensor to access specific information and a discreet display for short messages and reminders, etc. And all the health related sensors that people have come up with as well. That is where the ability to tell time comes in as well.
Names are program, so give the beast a new name and you will find new ways to design this wrist computer, that transcends the perceived limitations of a "watch".
P.S.: I wear a watch and have a cell phone in a holster. I need to wear titanium watches, because most watches in the US contain Nickel, which gives me a rash over time. I wear my phone in a holster because I find in uncomfortable in any pocket. And yes I'm middle aged ;-)
"... call the thing a wrist computer ... get rid of the current form and display restrictions ..." So you're basically suggesting a device the size of a Pip-Boy from Fallout with features that current smartwatches already have. The reason these smartwatches are in the shape of a watch, is because of the fact you stated yourself. A watch is a fashion statement, and a smartwatch is a fashion statement with more functionality than a regular watch. A watch is also something everyone is at least somehow familiar with, and it is small enough to be worn everywhere, unlike some bigger "wrist computer" would be.
It is true that the smartwatch form factor will evolve in the future, with bending displays and perhaps even holograms and whatnot. But with current tech, a watch form factor is the safest bet if you actually want a product that sells. In the future we could see a "smart bracelet" hosting a somewhat bigger touch screen and better battery life thanks to its larger size. But for the love of god, don't call it a "wrist computer".
I have no idea why you want it to be called a "wrist computer". That really sounds like some huge Casio wrist watch with calculator functions from the 80's or 90's. The same thing with "pocket computer". Sounds like one of those fixed function calculator sized gadgets that had some additional features like unit converters, dictionaries, alarms etc. I had one of those when I was a kid, when regular cell phones were starting to catch on. Do you also call a laptop a portable foldable computer? A modern TV a living room computer? A tablet a slab computer? Your age kind of shines through the whole comment you wrote...
I, as an Apple and Anandtech fan, hate to say this, but this article is clearly an Apple apoligist's justification for the Apple Watch. There are similar but more desirable smart watches, like the LG Urbane, with an always-on display, better battery life, and cheaper prices. All are solutions looking for a problem.
I just searched for a phone with e-paper, and couldn't find anything that wasn't a black-and-white companion display. That tech needs to be in more things.
I ordered a Pebble Time. I'm excited to see how the screen performs. I would never be able to stand any of the other watches that turn off completely.
Once again, a terrible article. If you state you don't know about design, don't write about it. When was the last time a digital watch needed 60 FPS? What does it really contribute? Seriously man you should at least try more than one watch for an extended period of time.
I use a Basis Peak with a monochrome non-60 FPS screen and a dumb OS and the experience with it is great. Why? Because they focused on a problem to then build a solution. What do 60 FPS and color displays solve? What does a complex OS solve? What do convoluted methods for interacting with a device solve?
Not only that, you give a pretty shallow look at battery life. As someone said, as an Apple apologist justification. The Basis Peak, and the Pebble offer a weeks worth of battery because they focus on problems to solve. Battery life is only an issue when you expect a computer running from your wrist and if that's what you want then better you'd better start contemplating that wall clock. A days worth of juice on a watch is a pretty poor experience by any measure (manual analog OR digital).
As geeks yes, lets put a Core i7 with a 4K screen GB worth of storage and the like just because its cool. But grounding ourselves to reality, lets just ask for hardware in our timepieces that gives them purpose.
I think the false premise here is they called it a watch because its in a persons wrist?.... If your premise has any validity then the watch is dead for those users and that functional bit is like lipstick on a pig. Fitness trackers have no issue they are clearly defined. Whatever it needs to be called... being called a smartwatch is misguided and well... lipstick on a pig. If it truly has a clearly defined / and engineered use then a name is obvious for its unique offerings.
This article really needed a good editor to clean it up. It's a wall of text filled with meandering rants, like most of Joshua Ho's articles, unlike Andrei Frumusanu's well-structured reviews. Word count doesn't equal quality... This is the kind of tripe I'd expect from a shameless content mill, not from Anandtech.
Anyway, as a Pebble Time user, I just need the company to add voice control through Google Now or Siri and it'll be the perfect smartwatch. Responding to SMSes by talking to my wrist is also cool but more needs to be done.
I still suspect smartwatches are a solution in search of a problem.
How did we get here? In terms of high end smart watches my (hazy recollection) is something like:
- Square iPod Nano. - Someone kickstarts a watch strap. - Apple implicitly acknowledges it by putting watchfaces on the refresh. - Samsung does first Gear. - Android Wear. - Apple Watch.
At no point was there any real discussion of what do we need this for. Rather the vague end user hype from the original square nano snowballed as sort of took on a life of its own...
Does anyone else agree that having something like Rezence charging would fix one of the primary complaints of wearable devices? Imagine sitting at your desk typing and your watch charges back up so you don't actually ever have to take it off. I doubt I will get seen here but I have to ask.
no one bring up the fact that some people use watches as jewelry items? for this public the material choice and design is even more important.
also in some situations it just is not possible to look at a cell phone to check the time, like when you work with public service. it would be really lack of education to keep checking your phone during work, so for this public a simple watch makes sense too.
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
35 Comments
Back to Article
flyingpants1 - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
A watch that automatically turns the screen off. Most annoying product ever.I like the smart band things with a tiny monochromatic 100x20 (or whatever) display. At least you can see the damn time..
flyingpants1 - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
They should have implemented e-paper or whatever it's called now, like in Qualcomm's Toq smartwatch.Morawka - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
yeah color e-paper is where its at.. maybe smart watches will push innovation in the e-ink display R&D that has been stalled for 5 years or so.jjj - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
ROFL you need to find another job. I can't believe that you keep thinking Apple did a good job. You don't even understand dumbwatches. Do anything else, you just have no vision at all and lack objectivity.ErinCarter - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
Quote - "As a result of the immature state of the market, the industry as a whole can't rely on consumer feedback either"Stop flaming and read/understand the article. The above quote plainly states the writers feelings and he must be considered a consumer also in this context.
mrdude - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
This is from the same reviewer that claimed the Apple watch was the best watch/wearable on the market despite and then plainly stated he hasn't reviewed any of the competitors' products.He's not wrong. Joshua's reviews/articles are a joke.
The articles on AnandTech as a whole have dipped in quality considerably. Mobile product reviews have been poor ever since Klug left, and Anand shortly after. More objectivity, not pandering. Call things as you see them, and if you've never used a product like it before (a watch), then that should probably be heavily weighed when reaching any and all conclusions. Comments like this:
"Similarly, things like always-on display are surprisingly not strictly necessary."
Are utterly idiotic when you consider how wonky gesture-based motions are to respond given something like body positioning -- good luck checking the time on your smartwatch while lying in bed. If it doesn't make it easier, it makes it more difficult. And given the smartwatches thus far only replicate smartphone functionality but add only slightly more convenience -- pulling your phone out of your pocket -- then you have to question what the point of these wearables is in the first place.
Gemuk - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
On the other hand, I feel AnandTech's mobile products reviews have been poor since, um, ever. Joshua Ho's articles feel very similar to Brian Klug's and Anand's to an extent. Thankfully they now have Andrei Frumusanu, whose reviews have always been a fantastic read.Murloc - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
battery life doesn't need to be compared to watches, but it's still an important parameter as people won't want to keep up with the battery life of not just one, but TWO devices.Other than that, the issue is that smartwatches are simply useless when you can take the smartphone out of your pocket.
Phones killed watches, that means people don't care about pulling stuff out of their pocket.
After all, pocket watches were used extensively.
The only way I see for smartwatches to take hold beyond fitness tracking, is if they can remove the need to take the phone out of your pocket to quickfire answers in whatsapp. But talking to your smartwatch doesn't provide privacy so that's an issue.
dullard - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
"smartwatches are simply useless when you can take the smartphone out of your pocket". This is precisely WHERE smartwatch designers need to focus. There are many use cases where you can't have a phone with you or can't take it out of your pocket/purse. Smartwatches are perfect for these situations. Think of an outfit with no pockets (an evening dress for example), think of jobs where you use both hands (construction), think of situations where it is awkward or impractical to pull out a phone (phablets while you are sitting can be impossible to get out of jean pockets or an important meeting), think of situations where you can't bring a phone (many top-secret companies such as military contractors or power plants) or don't get any phone reception so you probably don't have your phone (large buildings).Sadly virtually all current smartwatches (and even the bigger wearables category) are designed assuming that you do have your phone with you and you can pull you phone out. The Jawbone wearables are perfect examples, without a smartphone with you, you get NO benefit of them.
As soon as smartwatch makers begin to think of the situations where you want data but can't simply take out a smartphone, then they'll have a product. Until then, they'll be niche only. If it relies heavilly on a phone that you already have, why have a smartwatch? Give us solutions for use cases where you can't use the phone.
thekdub - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
A smart watch is definitely not a viable option in any area where top secret information is being handled, as these areas require you to remove any device capable of transmitting data and/or recording audio/video/images before entering. And nobody working construction or maintenance is going to want or need to use their device in a situation where both hands are being used, especially when these jobs usually require more than one person to be present for safety reasons. And without a data connection (or a phone to tie into), a lot of these smart watches become dumb watches with little added functionality over a phone or standard watch.Simply put, there still not many scenarios where a smart watch offers practical functionality where a phone or standard watch does not. Fitness tracking is honestly the only thing I can think of where I would use a smart watch regularly, but even then you're addressing a niche market as not everyone who stays fit is interested in analyzing the data from their workout afterwards. And really, I get enough hipster street cred with my Casio F91 to not have to worry about the fashion benefits of a smart watch.
name99 - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
It really takes a special sort of chutzpah to insist that a wrist computer is worthless even though:- the writer has never used one AND
- the entire history of electronics for the past 60+ years is of devices becoming ever smaller, cheaper, and closer to us.
A smartwatch is not JUST a timekeeper AND it is not just a health monitor (though it does both of those and can do them very well if appropriately designed). It also presents other similar timely information (for example temperature), configured as you choose.
On the one hand it's also a push destination, a target for notifications of all sorts which is always with you, so that you can see whether you want to respond to a particular new text message or whatever.
On the other hand, it is ALSO a device that can present answers to reasonable questions (where "reasonable") will of course keep growing with time. For example: "Hey Siri how many Taiwan Dollars in a dollar?" Like so many other things, it takes time to get used to this, to appreciate just how many answers you can get just by asking your wrist.
But, by all means scoff. It was visionaries like you who gave us WAP, and who were sure that the important uses for home computers were filing recipes and playing board games. It's one thing to know intellectually that Moore's law exists; it is (apparently) a much rarer skill to translate that knowledge into some sort of "you mean a watch will ALSO get better? It's ALSO made of transistors? It also uses fabs and micro-architecture and compilers and servers? Who would have thought?"
Impulses - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
I bought my smartwatch largely for the notifications... I spend all day either sitting at a computer, dealing with clients, or messing with hardware (or all three at once); and during two of those I'd rather avoid taking out my phone because it either makes the client feel ignored or it's just inconvenient.Really didn't think I'd use voice search more thru the watch, never used it much on my phone after all, but I'm coming around on that and I've found it genuinely useful at times.
Wardrop - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
Basically, smart watches need to cherry pick the things that a smartphone either can't do (health monitoring, silent alarms), is impractical to do (identification), or which can otherwise enhance what a smart phone already does, as in act as a second on-the-fly display for checking time, gps directions, etc.Flunk - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
Price is also a huge issue, they don't provide much more functionality than a normal watch. Normal watches retail for $20, you can get a steel one with a leather strap for $50 easily. Other than that the real question is do we really need something that fits between a smartphone and a watch? Most people have already give up watches, what is there that would make us go back?xype - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
No, price is not a huge issue, just as it’s not (and never was) a huge issue with smartphones. People who only have $50 to spare don’t need and probably don’t want a smartwatch. It’s, to a degree, a lifestyle product, just as normal watches are (especially since the era of mobile phones).And if you really, really need a smartwatch (either for sports activities, or the notifications, or anything else that they offer), you are going to be okay with paying a couple hundred bucks.
Rocket321 - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
I see an awful lot of people walking around wearing watches...to say that the traditional watch is dead I think is premature and frankly just incorrect.xype - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
It’s dead as the everyman’s tool that shows what time it is. In other words, Swatch is going to have an ever harder time selling their plastic watches.As a lifestyle or fashion product, it will likely take a looong time for it to die. And I don’t expect the watch as a luxury product to go away anytime soon.
nafhan - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
We are at the early adopter phase for smartwatches. That said:--I don't care about an always on screen, but I do need it to be on when I look at it. No one has gotten this right yet. The wrist flicking on the iWatch is close
--It needs to be comfortable to wear
--It needs to be either inexpensive (~$100) OR very future proof 4 to 5 year life span, I don't feel certain that current Apple or Google smartwatches will be useful in that time frame, $300-$600 on something that's not going to work well in a year or two sucks
--waterproof, I would ruin an iWatch by jumping in a pool. This is why I did not buy a Fitbit
--a week of battery life, or at least a few days, I'm going to forget to charge it some nights, that's annoying enough with a phone
--I want the watch face to just be time and notifications with simple apps, I think both Apple and Google almost have this right
--I want it to be device ecosystem independent, which probably means I can't get an iWatch
gamer1000k - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
It sounds like you would be more interested in a Pebble as opposed to an Apple/Google smartwatch. Unfortunately Anandtech hasn't really mentioned them in the recent smartwatch articles which is a shame, but there is this article from February: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9005/pebble-announce...It doesn't quite fit all your criteria (still a little too expensive, only 50m water resistant but could probably survive a dip in the pool), but it does a much better job than most of the other smart watches currently available.
gamer1000k - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
Edit: The original Pebble has been discounted to $100 and sports relatively good water resistance: http://forums.getpebble.com/discussion/5608/how-ma...name99 - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
- Apple Watch (aWatch, not iWatch) screen lights up by wrist attitude, not flicking. Flicking is Pebble.- The aWatch sports band is generally considered to be the most comfortable watch strap around. (Which is a pretty pathetic indictment of traditional watch manufacturers; kinda the same way car manufacturers make vastly more comfortable seats than the vast bulk of furniture manufacturers...)
This appears to be because the polymer used has a coefficient of thermal expansion that pretty closes matches the human body.
- Price I can't help you with. You get what you pay for. If you can't afford something new, wait a year and buy one from someone upgrading.
- aWatch is generally considered to be waterproof enough for both showering and swimming. Obviously the touch screen will not operate well when wet; and if in the ocean it should be cleaned afterwards to limit the risk of salt water corrosion.
http://furbo.org/2015/07/14/a-watch-water-and-work...
- worrying about battery life is just not a big deal. Every person who actually owns one will tell you that. Conversely, someone who doesn't own an aWatch but insists on constantly bitching about the battery life is the exact same person who five years ago was bitching about SD cards and sealed-in batteries --- the guy who won't use an Apple product for religious reasons, but wants to pretend to the world that he's doing so on deeply rational grounds.
- can't help you with "device ecosystem independent" since to me that sounds a whole lot like what I just said above. You can get a Pebble which is equally limited on both Android and iOS, I guess.
I had a Pebble for a year before I got my aWatch. It does the job, yes, but the transition is like moving from a Treo to an iPhone. Sure, if you look at the specs, they're both smartphones that supposedly do the same sort of thing; but in actual usage one is vastly more capable and more pleasant to use than the other.
Hayes - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
You mention that WatchOS is the best watch OS (ha...) around. This made me very curious, but you don't provide any motivation in this article. Could you provide a link to the reasoning behind this? Has there previously been any comparison that I missed perhaps?Conficio - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
Stop calling it a "smart watch" and you might see the markets and the utility.You make it abundantly clear that the remaining Watch wearers use their watch as fashion statement. This kind of fashion statement was ubiquitous but in the 21st century it is not enough to be able to tell time, but you need to be connected (to other people - cell phone; to the world's information / Internet - smart phone). so the new ubiquitous fashion statement is a smart phone.
Now call the thing a wrist computer and you are addressing one market. Those that want a computer and its connectivity (voice, data, GPS) and want it in ever smaller forms (PC, desktop, laptop, smart phone, wrist computer). Then you also get rid of the current form and display restrictions and understand that a fitbit is essentially a one function version of the thing most people call a smart watch. Now think of single applications you could do with something at your wrist, where speed or the the ability to point or measure what you do with your hand is important. Point and "see" a product, price tag, location, etc. take a quick picture, voice note, play back notes and may be a calendar with vibrating reminder, and navigation capability.
Also look at it as a sensor extension to my pocket computer, so I don't have to take this "smart phone" out of my pocket. I should be able to use this as my unlock for the phone, my gesture sensor to access specific information and a discreet display for short messages and reminders, etc. And all the health related sensors that people have come up with as well. That is where the ability to tell time comes in as well.
Names are program, so give the beast a new name and you will find new ways to design this wrist computer, that transcends the perceived limitations of a "watch".
P.S.: I wear a watch and have a cell phone in a holster. I need to wear titanium watches, because most watches in the US contain Nickel, which gives me a rash over time. I wear my phone in a holster because I find in uncomfortable in any pocket. And yes I'm middle aged ;-)
Kepe - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
"... call the thing a wrist computer ... get rid of the current form and display restrictions ..."So you're basically suggesting a device the size of a Pip-Boy from Fallout with features that current smartwatches already have. The reason these smartwatches are in the shape of a watch, is because of the fact you stated yourself. A watch is a fashion statement, and a smartwatch is a fashion statement with more functionality than a regular watch. A watch is also something everyone is at least somehow familiar with, and it is small enough to be worn everywhere, unlike some bigger "wrist computer" would be.
It is true that the smartwatch form factor will evolve in the future, with bending displays and perhaps even holograms and whatnot. But with current tech, a watch form factor is the safest bet if you actually want a product that sells. In the future we could see a "smart bracelet" hosting a somewhat bigger touch screen and better battery life thanks to its larger size. But for the love of god, don't call it a "wrist computer".
I have no idea why you want it to be called a "wrist computer". That really sounds like some huge Casio wrist watch with calculator functions from the 80's or 90's. The same thing with "pocket computer". Sounds like one of those fixed function calculator sized gadgets that had some additional features like unit converters, dictionaries, alarms etc. I had one of those when I was a kid, when regular cell phones were starting to catch on. Do you also call a laptop a portable foldable computer? A modern TV a living room computer? A tablet a slab computer? Your age kind of shines through the whole comment you wrote...
zodiacfml - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
Simply, it doesn't solve a problem or need. Period.Laugsb1 - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
I, as an Apple and Anandtech fan, hate to say this, but this article is clearly an Apple apoligist's justification for the Apple Watch. There are similar but more desirable smart watches, like the LG Urbane, with an always-on display, better battery life, and cheaper prices. All are solutions looking for a problem.mkozakewich - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
I just searched for a phone with e-paper, and couldn't find anything that wasn't a black-and-white companion display. That tech needs to be in more things.I ordered a Pebble Time. I'm excited to see how the screen performs. I would never be able to stand any of the other watches that turn off completely.
nrencoret - Wednesday, August 26, 2015 - link
Once again, a terrible article. If you state you don't know about design, don't write about it. When was the last time a digital watch needed 60 FPS? What does it really contribute? Seriously man you should at least try more than one watch for an extended period of time.I use a Basis Peak with a monochrome non-60 FPS screen and a dumb OS and the experience with it is great. Why? Because they focused on a problem to then build a solution. What do 60 FPS and color displays solve? What does a complex OS solve? What do convoluted methods for interacting with a device solve?
Not only that, you give a pretty shallow look at battery life. As someone said, as an Apple apologist justification. The Basis Peak, and the Pebble offer a weeks worth of battery because they focus on problems to solve. Battery life is only an issue when you expect a computer running from your wrist and if that's what you want then better you'd better start contemplating that wall clock. A days worth of juice on a watch is a pretty poor experience by any measure (manual analog OR digital).
As geeks yes, lets put a Core i7 with a 4K screen GB worth of storage and the like just because its cool. But grounding ourselves to reality, lets just ask for hardware in our timepieces that gives them purpose.
whatsa - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
I think the false premise here is they called it a watch because its in a persons wrist?....If your premise has any validity then the watch is dead for those users and that functional bit is like lipstick on a pig. Fitness trackers have no issue they are clearly defined.
Whatever it needs to be called... being called a smartwatch is misguided and well... lipstick on a pig.
If it truly has a clearly defined / and engineered use then a name is obvious for its unique offerings.
serendip - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
This article really needed a good editor to clean it up. It's a wall of text filled with meandering rants, like most of Joshua Ho's articles, unlike Andrei Frumusanu's well-structured reviews. Word count doesn't equal quality... This is the kind of tripe I'd expect from a shameless content mill, not from Anandtech.Anyway, as a Pebble Time user, I just need the company to add voice control through Google Now or Siri and it'll be the perfect smartwatch. Responding to SMSes by talking to my wrist is also cool but more needs to be done.
Jon Tseng - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
Tx for the article.I still suspect smartwatches are a solution in search of a problem.
How did we get here? In terms of high end smart watches my (hazy recollection) is something like:
- Square iPod Nano.
- Someone kickstarts a watch strap.
- Apple implicitly acknowledges it by putting watchfaces on the refresh.
- Samsung does first Gear.
- Android Wear.
- Apple Watch.
At no point was there any real discussion of what do we need this for. Rather the vague end user hype from the original square nano snowballed as sort of took on a life of its own...
StubbyMcGee - Monday, August 31, 2015 - link
Sony had an Android smartwatch before Apple got the iPod nano watchfacesSunLord - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
I'd like to see an android wear watch with a mirasol display it seems like the perfect color option compared to lcd and oldThrawn - Thursday, August 27, 2015 - link
Does anyone else agree that having something like Rezence charging would fix one of the primary complaints of wearable devices? Imagine sitting at your desk typing and your watch charges back up so you don't actually ever have to take it off.I doubt I will get seen here but I have to ask.
marc1000 - Tuesday, September 1, 2015 - link
no one bring up the fact that some people use watches as jewelry items? for this public the material choice and design is even more important.also in some situations it just is not possible to look at a cell phone to check the time, like when you work with public service. it would be really lack of education to keep checking your phone during work, so for this public a simple watch makes sense too.