Back to Article

  • Broken - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    I am all over that Moto 360. Finally a classy smart watch. Reminds me of the old Sony(fossil) smart watch a little. Hopefully it lasts a couple days on a charge. Reply
  • uhuznaa - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    I would never call something classy that I have only seen in renderings.

    I'm also not sure if aping a watch is the most clever thing to do for wearable tech. Do Smartphones look like cellphones with added features? Well, the first smartphones certainly did, but they weren't exactly a hit.
  • teiglin - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    The watch is a mature market of jewelry, and when smartphones were introduced, they did look just like other cell phones (I had a Windows Mobile flip phone for a while in college). I'm not saying there is no market for different-looking smartwatches, but the look of Gear and the G Watch call to mind the hideous calculator watch I wore when I was 10. Obviously some people buy them regardless, or at least in spite, of their appearance, but I would argue that the idea that a watch is a fashion accessory is embedded in the consumer consciousness in a way that has no equivalent in the relatively-nascent smartphone space. Certainly people have begun to view smartphones more and more that way, but it is still standard fare to see people with a black slab and that is okay for a phone; using an ugly phone does not bring social judgment upon someone the way wearing an ugly watch will. Reply
  • name99 - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    Why does the fact that the watch WAS an item of jewelry mean that future wearables have to be the same? [And isn't it strange that the people who go on about this the most are the same people who criticize Apple fans for buying based on "fashion"? I'm an Apple fan, but I wear the cheapest Timex watch I could find at Target that offers the particular set of functionality I want.]

    The watch as fashion item is a historical weirdness; it has nothing to with the future, there is nothing INTRINSIC about it.

    (a) If you don't like watches, then don't call it a watch. Call it a duoscreen. Call it a wristman. Call it an iBand.
    (b) The world is full of things that we were told would never be popular because they were "too dorky", from the first cell phones to bluetooth headsets. I expect that, yes, people who obsess about their appearance, will not be the first people to use these devices. Which means precisely nothing.

    There are plenty of people who WILL use them, and as their value and usefulness is increased, the popularity will increase. Walkman's were a dorky niche item, which when they became iPods became less dorky and less niche. A businessman would never have worn a Walkman around work, but wearing a BT headset around work is hardly unusual...
  • solipsism - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    "Wearables" have been around since dawn of man and despite some obvious practical uses they are all deeply intertwined with fashion. I think it's unreasonable to assume that a movement into electronic wearables are going to start a new revolution of being purely practical objects. Reply
  • Dentons - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    This could spell the death of Firefox OS.

    Yes, it's for wearables, not phones. Firefox OS's only remaining selling point is its low hardware requirements. This should match or beat those. Chinese OEM's won't hesitate to scavenge this codebase for their cheap, developing world, Android phones.
  • Conficio - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    I don't think so, isn't this only driving the UI and some sensors and a connection to the phone. It needs still a phone in your pocket to execute the rest of the features a smart phone has (Phone, GPS, ...) Reply
  • StargateNH - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    I wont be happy if I have to charge these daily. Enough to NOT buy one if thats the case...but I want one so bad! Reply
  • Homeles - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    Fortunately, that's something that will go away as a function of time. In particular, when SoCs are moved to FinFET processes, we should see some healthy jumps in battery life. Displays are always getting better too. It's also a relatively new form factor, and we'll see things improve as time goes on. Reply
  • name99 - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    This is why I think the SUCCESSFUL versions of these (in particular Apple's version) will NOT feature a full OS and robust core. The power requirements are too high, the extra functionality is too low. It makes far more sense to put EVERYTHING that doesn't have to be on the wrist on the phone. The wrist has display, sensors, BT LE, and a minimal core, minimal OS, minimal memory, nothing else.

    Yes, there'll be whining from the usual idiots, but catering to these people has been a guaranteed money loser in the past. The company that wins in this space will be the one that gets battery life right, not the one that offers the biggest SDK.
  • jlbahr - Thursday, March 20, 2014 - link

    I agree. Battery life is a big issue with real people, and most phone SoC's just chew up too much battery life -- and an AW will have an even smaller battery, no doubt (e.g., 200 mAh). Wearables like the Fuelband and FitBit get around this by using very low power SoC's like the STM32 and NO DRAM and no external flash and no GPS or mid-powered sensors. The QC Toq is a good example of a wearable with poor battery life. Any idea what the proposed SoC is in the Moto 360 or LG G Watch? Reply
  • Walkop - Thursday, March 20, 2014 - link

    Honestly, I don't see Apple being able to compete even remotely with Google in this regard. They simply don't have the software base to accomplish this in a competitive timeframe.

    If the Moto 360 is on even the same playing field as the Motto X and G, it'll have a great build, feel great and look classy on the wrist, and have fantastic, pointed functionality (plus great battery life) at a good price.
  • Walkop - Thursday, March 20, 2014 - link

    *Moto. No editing. :p Reply
  • michael2k - Monday, March 24, 2014 - link

    It's like you don't remember that Apple has been making iPods for over a decade now.

    They absolutely have the SW and HW base to make a wearable; I'm not certain why you would say otherwise.

    They know a lot about low power CE, what with the 24 hour continuous runtime of their 6th gen iPod nano.
  • jjj - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    You seem to get lost into the hate narrative about glass, the camera is a minor problem, there are plenty of cheap cameras that are smaller and easier to hide , phones already are a privacy nightmare , there is no retail Glass hardware and so on.
    As for Android Wear , watches are just a first step, Google makes it clear that it's not just for that. Glasses are the next huge thing (Glass, Oculus) and a huge opportunity for any OS to rise and/or fall.That's why they are doing it, they got to try to keep Android on top.
    About the watches and the usage, it don't seem to be anywhere near enough. The focus still is on notifications and fitness while the form factor is just copying watches instead of better utilizing the available space.Watches have the advantage of always on our wrists, glasses won't be always on out heads and phones are in our pockets. Before watches can sell tens of millions of units per quarter we need them to have a lot more functionality. Payments would be a lot more convenient than with other devices, remote control would be a challenge UI wise but again rather convenient (this includes smart home, unlocking cars). Even at 50$-100$ watches with just notification and fitness functionality won't do all that great.Google and it's partners need to understand that they need to launch a compelling device that makes significant waves not this.
    Hardware wise, as long as they insist on a watch like shape,it's not smart enough.
    Anyway watches , even if they become good enough are a pretty limited opportunity,The hardware can't really evolve much, the size of the display is limited and even flexible/expandable screens won't help ( projectors are out of the question for quite a while and by then watches as a distinct category would be dead). Somewhere down the road a hybrid glasses/watch device should be doable ,we can't keep our glasses always on so we might as well store them on our wrist.
    Anyway , Android took this step, now we'll have to see what other OSes open to more than 1 OEM are ready to try to be the next dominant OS. Glasses will offer quite a lot of interesting options. AR ( virtual keyboards or other devices)and adaptive UI - here Project Tango should help Google do some cool things.
    I am not very sure about forking Android, everybody is trying to unify their OSes, forking Android doesn't seem all that great so i hope it's not all that forked and it's pretty much KitKat.
  • extide - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    This is not at all a fork of Android, it is meant to be used as an extension to Android. I am not sure if they are going to target MCU type SoC's (Cortex M class) or full on application processors (Cortex A class), but my guess would be they are probably going to go for the latter. This would mean they would of course still use the Linux kernel, but most of the rest of the OS would be quite different. I would imagine most of the codebase would be new code. Definitely not a fork of the Android codebase. Reply
  • solipsism - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    An extension of a smartphone (or other computer device) is exactly how I perceive this market to succeed. Google Glass, Galaxy Wear, etc. all are trying to duplicate too many features of a smartphone instead of trying to be a powerful accessory to a smartphone.

    I would love to see a lot of biometrics that can monitor health over a long period. This device is ugly and too big but I think this is the sort of biometrics we can expect in a decent looking and sized device within a couple years:
  • jlbahr - Thursday, March 20, 2014 - link

    The SDK refers to ARM v7a architectures, which are at a minimum Cortex M5 . . . quite a bit more speed, power consumption, heat dissipation, etc than the usual MCU's used in current wearables. So it will be interesting to see what's actually in an LG G Watch or Moto 360. Reply
  • sevenmack - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    "After all, a watch has generally been for fashion, while phones have always been tools first."

    Actually, Josh, that statement is not true. Historically, watches (including pocket watches and wristwatches) have primarily served as tools, especially for measuring speed and distance, as well as for navigation. That's why watches such as chronographs continue to have such tools as tachymeters (which are used to calculate speed based on travel time) and dive watches such as those from Rolex still have rotating bezels for use under water. And much of the complications that are features of mechanical and quartz watches today were developed in the previous centuries to use technology to solve problems of those times; moon phases, for example, were important tools for sailors and navigators of a century ago.

    While fashion has become a dominant role, one can easily say that watches were the tools that smartphones are today. And with the focus on design becoming a bigger part of smartphone development, it can be said that our phones will become fashion accessories by the end of this century. Just like watches.
  • TerylT - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    A watch is a tool, I admit that I have some rather expensive watches that could be classified as fashion accessories, Tissot, Fossil, Relic and Seiko to name a few. However, each of these watches are designed to do one thing extremely well, Keep time. Secondly they last, my Tissot is a decade old and still looks new, though it's been worn daily in rather harsh environments. Same with the others.

    While I really look forward to the future of smart watches, I have to wonder if we'll be dropping $300+ on devices that are on a 12 month life cycle? With current battery tech and assuming that the batteries are non user replaceable the long end of the life cycle is about 24 months or so.
  • sevenmack - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    Thanks for your kind words. And you make a great point: While fashion is a dominant aspect of watch design, the tool aspect also remains dominant. In fact, watch collectors will often ding a timepiece if it fails at living up to its obligations as tool; a dial that is pretty yet illegible (and worse, doesn't have a strong enough lume for the owner to look up the time while in the dark) is as useless to many people as a broken watch. In fact, even more so, because at least the broken watch will get the time right twice a day.

    As for buying a smartwatch that will end up being outdated after a year? Well, people drop as much as $100K on watches that are using obsolete mechanical and quartz technology. So I don't find spending $300 on a smartwatch that may not be updated after two years to necessarily be a bad thing; as with cellphones, you will buy smartwatches for the technology of that time. That's just a risk you take with all technology.
  • JoshHo - Thursday, March 20, 2014 - link

    It's true that they were historically used as tools, but the key is the present in this case, sorry for being unclear in my statement. Reply
  • Anders CT - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    That motorola watch looks really awesome, allthough I'm guessing that the battery life will disapointing. But still, that prerendered watch looks really nice :D Reply
  • Denithor - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    No. Just, no.

    I was so happy to quit wearing a watch when I started using a smartphone. No way I'm going to now start wearing a huge, clunky smartwatch on my wrist!
  • EnzoFX - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    First, it's not out, and I don't think you understand the enhanced utility to be had.

    Second, I'm PRETTY SURE, they're still going to keep making Smartphones.... So if it's simply not for you, then gtfo, no one's making you buy one.
  • Death666Angel - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    Totally +1. Nothing to add, eloquently said. Kudos to you! Reply
  • Conficio - Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - link

    "After all, a watch has generally been for fashion, while phones have always been tools first." - Whee what about the utility of a Watch to tell time? I'd value that over fashion.

    Besides, why does a smart watch, like the Moto 360 not have a chronograph with hardware buttons? Many people willing to shell out premium prices for a watch want to actually measure time or attach to the cache of sports where you would do so. And a stop watch that is connected to an app would be gold [ aka another market where people are willing to spend for features] (look at all the Garmins, o.k. they have also a GPS, but that is in the phone already)
  • chucknelson - Friday, March 21, 2014 - link

    I don't understand why, but it seems like you went out of your way to avoid mentioning anything about Apple. Just straight up mention that Google, Samsung and others don't want to get burned like they did with the iPhone instead of these generic "learning from past experiences in the smartphone space" statements. This does not come across as being objective, it just seems like you're ignoring the obvious. Reply
  • jayviradiya - Monday, March 24, 2014 - link

    Looks like Motorola is back to field and that too with a heavy weapon of ‘The Google’. Imaginations of smart- watch are simplified after this reveal of smart watch with android; in fact the Mini Version of Android.
    Now finally it seems that life would turn quiet innovative with context to portable gadgets! Hopes and desire of people tend to request for online messenger applications like WhatsApp and Wechat interface on Smart-watches that use QWERTY Key pad!! Let’s see what’s next!!

    You can also visit on it:
  • isa - Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - link

    This is just the latest futile attempt to top the BWOAT: the Casio calculator watch. Can't beat perfection. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now