Back to Article

  • PICman - Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - link

    Seems like an enormous amount of computing power (and power consumption) for a watch. Does a watch really need to run Android? I'm missing something here.... Reply
  • quiksilvr - Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - link

    I agree. A Snapdragon 200 would have been more than enough for this device. Shoehorning in a 400 just seems like overkill. The processors in these watches are powerful enough to run a Moto G! Reply
  • nicolapeluchetti - Wednesday, September 03, 2014 - link

    Also, what's the purpose of a GPU in a smart watch? Reply
  • teddyboyd - Tuesday, December 09, 2014 - link

    The Sony Smartwatch is far from one of the better smartwatches if you ask me! /Ted from Reply
  • piroroadkill - Thursday, September 04, 2014 - link

    Yeah, this is absurd. There's no need for a quad core or even dual core. It's a watch. Battery life is the most important thing. Reply
  • Wolfpup - Thursday, September 04, 2014 - link

    I don't really understand the point of Android Wear, since you still have to have the phone anyway...

    Of the three, I'd buy the Sony one in a heartbeat as it's Sony, IMO looks the best, and it's WATERPROOF. (Plus larger battery.)...but I don't really see the point.

    Intrigued by what the eInk device can do. The idea of a speaker and mic in it are interesting, and eink would seem to make a lot of sense for a watch. (I'd still like an eInk tablet...)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now