Samsung Galaxy Gear Review
by Brian Klug on October 1, 2013 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Wearables
- Smartphones
- Mobile
- Galaxy Gear
- galaxy note 3
- watches
Battery Life
Gear’s designers went in a direction that completely defies most of the norm we’ve seen in this latest crop of smartwatches. Rather than the low power Cortex M3 route that seems to be popular, Samsung went with a dual core SoC (Exynos 4212), disabled a core, and set the CPU frequency to a maximum of 800 MHz. On top of the whole thing runs Android 4.2.2 and the Gear software, making the watch more like a small smartphone. The combination of aggressive display timeout (with a maximum of 5 minutes) and the activation gesture for waking the watch up signals to me that battery life probably was a challenge on the Gear.
I don’t really know what the best way is to battery life test a watch yet, and I struggled with that while trying to review Pebble. I settled on just timing how long I got through a battery charge there, which ended up being almost exactly a week (7.02 days was my average), which is basically my only context for what smartwatch battery life should be. The Gear obviously has a considerably more powerful platform, display, and capabilities, so it isn’t a shocker that battery life overall is less.
It’s easy to get around the display timeout limitations and just keep the display on Gear turned on forever, displaying the watchface. I ran a rundown test with the watchface set to brightness level 4 (there are levels 1–5 and outdoor brightness) while connected over Bluetooth to the Note 3. Gear managed 5.117 hours of total screen-on time showing the watch face (clock plus weather) connected to Note 3.
Of course the way that Gear is setup which prevents display from being on all the time, battery life during actual use will be longer. I’d say somewhere just over a day would be on the short side, maybe two or three days is possible if you try to stretch it a lot. I placed a few calls and played with Gear a lot one day and almost didn’t make it through, another day I felt like Gear would’ve lasted two had I let the use pattern continue.
The positive side is that thanks to its smaller battery, Gear can charge from completely drained to 100 percent in just under an hour, the simultaneous downside is that you need the charging cradle to do it. If you’re comfortable charging the Gear daily, it’s survivable, the question is whether consumers are willing to adopt the daily charge requirements of another device. I’ve gotten in the habit of plugging Pebble in every night, so this isn’t a big deal for me, but I also enjoy having a week of battery life when I go travel. I suspect that’s a use pattern that others can empathize with when considering Gear, which guarantees a little over a day of use realistically, and a bit more if you’re careful.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
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.