Google and Samsung unite to reboot Android watches

[fUnDaMeNtAl_knobhead]

Summary

 

Gogle and Samsung are developing a newer version of Wear OS hoping to be the Android for smartwatches.

 

Quotes

Quote

 Picking a smartwatch for Android phones has never been easy. Google's Wear OS aimed to become Android for watches years ago, but in reality the landscape has fragmented with Samsung's Galaxy watches, plus Fitbit, Garmin and other fitness watches all having their own OS and apps. But that seems to be changing now.

 

My thoughts

I am thrilled to hear this news I just hope that Linux beats it.

 

Sources

https://www.cnet.com/news/google-and-samsung-are-combining-to-reboot-android-watches-with-a-dose-of-fitbit-too/

[mon1ka]

8 minutes ago, linux fanboy said:

I just hope that Linux beats it.

> comment made by a user called linux fanboy.

 

checks out.

 

Also what do you mean by a linux smartwatch? wouldn't it be possible to jailbreak one of these watches?

[fUnDaMeNtAl_knobhead]

Hoping that somebody will make a linux smartwatch.

And for once beating Android in popularity

[Entropy.]

14 minutes ago, linux fanboy said:

Summary

 

Gogle and Samsung are developing a newer version of Wear OS hoping to be the Android for smartwatches.

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

I am thrilled to hear this news I just hope that Linux beats it.

 

Sources

https://www.cnet.com/news/google-and-samsung-are-combining-to-reboot-android-watches-with-a-dose-of-fitbit-too/

Absolutely maddening seeing how crappy current andriod watches are, hopefully this'll help. Fitbit watches are premium products without much smart functionality or power, samsung watches are... apple watches, but andriod, round, and crappier, everything else just kinda sucks as anything other than a basic smartwatch. 

[fUnDaMeNtAl_knobhead]

1 minute ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

What do people even see in smart watches? Tiny screen, terrible battery, firmware updates... 

 

And this thing is way cooler anyways:

 

 

To you. I have my own opinions.

[Arika]

11 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

What do people even see in smart watches?

i got one purely for notification vibration on my wrist. My phone is in my bag most of the time and i have it on silent or vibrate, so i can still know if something needs my attention.

 

edit: and as a silent alarm to wake me up, so i don't also wake up my partner in the morning.

[SorryBella]

10 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

What do people even see in smart watches?

Phone sensors are bad for bike tracking, i only use it for that really beyond overpriced time keeping.

 

26 minutes ago, linux fanboy said:

Hoping that somebody will make a linux smartwatch

Open source smartwatch? https://open-smartwatch.github.io/

[Arika]

1 minute ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Don't you get phantom vibrations? Stopped carrying my phone on my pockets after getting them. 

never.

[seon123]

25 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

What do people even see in smart watches? Tiny screen, terrible battery, firmware updates... 

Getting notifications without having sound turned on; setting timers without having to take out my phone; sleep and activity tracking; measuring pulse; navigation, media controls and notifications while biking. Those are at least the features I use regularly enough to remember right now.

33 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

And this thing is way cooler anyways:

 

What do you even see in mechanical watches? Analog dials instead of easier to read digital; accuracy that's worse than much cheaper quartz clocks; more fragile than all the other options...

[fUnDaMeNtAl_knobhead]

Well you just said it.

Mechanical watches are just decorative things.

Smart watches are useful things.

[seon123]

2 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

They're handcrafted masterpieces of art. Kind of buying a painting, sculpture, or automata, but for your wrist.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Isn't it weird to point out impractical things about smartwatches, only to say that you prefer something that's less practical, because it's art?

[fUnDaMeNtAl_knobhead]

gabrielcarvfer are you a collecter or watchmaker

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, seon123 said:

Getting notifications without having sound turned on; setting timers without having to take out my phone; sleep and activity tracking; measuring pulse; navigation, media controls and notifications while biking. Those are at least the features I use regularly enough to remember right now.

What do you even see in mechanical watches? Analog dials instead of easier to read digital; accuracy that's worse than much cheaper quartz clocks; more fragile than all the other options...

How are digital easier to read than analog where you have visual representation of day on it in hour segments? A lot of people can read analog dials easier because of this, especially when counting hours passed or hours to whatever timeline are involved.

[RejZoR]

It's funny how Android fanboys always go with "yeah but Android/WearOS did it first". It matters not who did it first, it matters who did it better. Google did a lot of things with Android first, but they were usually garbage implementations. Apple on the other hand came up with those features very late, but they did them much better in almost all cases.

 

It's also funny comparing "feature" watches with very limited functionality without always-on display with days of battery to ones running full on OS with proper always-on display that only last for a day in general.

 

Apple watches can run any app if developer decides to make one for it. All "feature" watches only provide support for a select range of apps that they hook into. WearOS is the same thing, but it was apparently terrible at doing a lot of things. We'll see if Google and Samsung partnership is going to fix that.

[WolframaticAlpha]

 

4 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It's funny how Android fanboys always go with "yeah but Android/WearOS did it first". It matters not who did it first, it matters who did it better. Google did a lot of things with Android first, but they were usually garbage implementations. Apple on the other hand came up with those features very late, but they did them much better in almost all cases.

 

It's funny how apple fanboys always go with, "apple is so revolutionary, they did this first". But when apple is not first, they will say that apple did it better. 

 

By your logic, everyone should've waited for Apple to put in a fucking widget on their homescreen, instead of buying a droid, because "Apple did it better", 14 years later.

5 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

t's also funny comparing "feature" watches with very limited functionality without always-on display with days of battery to ones running full on OS with proper always-on display that only last for a day in general.

It's also funny, that when so many android watches can work both as a feature watch and a smart always on watch. And it's also funny how some watches are able to eke out 5 days of charge, without sacrificing much functionality.

 

9 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Apple watches can run any app if developer decides to make one for it. All "feature" watches only provide support for a select range of apps that they hook into. WearOS is the same thing, but it was apparently terrible at doing a lot of things. We'll see if Google and Samsung partnership is going to fix that

1. Tizen is a full fledged wearable OS, which many people would prefer over watchOS(me included) any day. If you haven't used or watched a review of a tizen watch, please refrain from calling it a feature OS.

2. WearOS was terrible. It is still pretty shitty at some stuff, but is quite bearable and usable. Also both tizen and wearos have their own app stores.

[HomeBoi]

5 hours ago, mon1ka said:

> comment made by a user called linux fanboy.

 

checks out.

 

Also what do you mean by a linux smartwatch? wouldn't it be possible to jailbreak one of these watches?

Well anything is jailbreakable given enough research and time, usually. You could prob run linux on apple watch if wanted to

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

What do people even see in smart watches? Tiny screen, terrible battery, firmware updates... 

Mostly fitness tracking, and even that is mostly for fun.

See heartrate when running and swimming.

See sleep patterns. Do I sleep better when I go to bed early, or late, or when I work out before, or when I have been outside, or eaten something, etc.

Being able to easily see notifications without having to take my phone out of the pocket.

It made two factor authentication a lot easier.

[Orcblood]

6 hours ago, RejZoR said:

How are digital easier to read than analog where you have visual representation of day on it in hour segments? A lot of people can read analog dials easier because of this, especially when counting hours passed or hours to whatever timeline are involved.

Wtf. I'll pretend you didn't say that cause I know you like to win an argument. 

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

10 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

What do people even see in smart watches? Tiny screen, terrible battery, firmware updates... 

Well, health and fitness features for a start.

 

Something that can reliably track your steps and your heart rate, track calories lost, etc. You can't do that on a normal watch. Also, notifications on your wrist (you might have your phone on DND but will can feel the haptic feedback from your watch.

 

If you like standard mechanical/analog watches, then go ahead. I can't really judge you. Personally, I don't find them that interesting. I still read a digital clock much faster than I do an analog clock (I seriously cannot fathom the fact that people read analog clocks faster, you literally just have to look at the numbers and you know the exact time), and if I'm going to go with a digital watch I might as well go with one that can do fancy stuff.

 

I just wish that most watches at like 5-10% battery would go into a low power state where the OLED would just show the time, and disable all connectivity. That way, you still get time for days if you're not near a charger.

7 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

It's funny how apple fanboys always go with, "apple is so revolutionary, they did this first". But when apple is not first, they will say that apple did it better. 

I seriously cannot think of a single thing Apple has done "first".

 

Nope. Don't got it. Even the original iPhone was beat out by the LG Prada, although the iPhone was in development since 2004/2005. What Apple does is popularize a sometimes niche product category to a consumer audience to the point where other businesses see it as profitable to take a jab at it. E.g. iPod, iPhone, iPad, iMac, Mac mini, etc. All of these products weren't first in their category, but Apple's implementation is what stuck around. And when Apple fails (like the HomePod), they just sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn't exist.

7 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

By your logic, everyone should've waited for Apple to put in a fucking widget on their homescreen, instead of buying a droid, because "Apple did it better", 14 years later.

I mean pointing out software differences is a bit over the top. iOS had built in screen recording 2 years before Android got it. Google just thought that there were more important software improvements to make, like copying the iPhone X's gesture system after they failed to make their own *cough*.

 

But Google did bring copy/paste to mobile before Apple, so I guess that's something.

[Lord Bloobus]

I'm excited for this, my Fitbit Blaze is due for a replacement.

[RejZoR]

5 hours ago, Orcblood said:

Wtf. I'll pretend you didn't say that cause I know you like to win an argument. 

And I'll assume you love assuming shit.

[Entropy.]

11 hours ago, Benji said:

Which proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. First of all, they exist longer than Apple Watches, so they're not "Apple Watches but Android and crappier/round". Nothing about them really sucks, they have WAY better battery runtimes (which is why it's really a pity that Samsung is going back to that garbage heap WearOS) and also they run Tizen OS and not Android...I think they went over from Android Wear to Tizen OS with the Gear 2 (which was released April 2014, so it's actually older than the Apple Watch, and has multiple successors at this point).

Not at all relevant in the slightest. I don't care whatsoever which series of watch is older. 

Quote

Given the fact that they're just as much a fitness-centric device but with actually continuous HR measurement instead of the Apple Watch's useless minimum of one minute (meaning that it basically can't really measure HR variability, which will be interesting with HIIT) (which was one of the reasons I chose a Samsung Galaxy Watch over Apple Watches or these non-standalone microcontroller-driven watches) and the fact that Apple only supports sleep tracking since the current watchOS 7 (which shows how crappy their battery runtime is, they're not even meant to be used all day), I'd say they're actually better for fitness purposes as opposed to "Apple Watches, just round and crappier". The Apple Watch only made wearables fashionable because Apple, not because the other options are/were bad.

 

Uh okay? I didn't specify what functions I was talking about. You're cherry picking the benefits, some benefits are picked according to your preferences, which I again, don't care about in the slightest. Was expressing my opinion, and apparently "I have no idea what I'm talking about." 

Quote

I really hope that they don't mess this up with their transition to Wear OS because the Galaxy Watch was my choice due to it's really long battery runtime for a smartwatch that features an actual processor and can do everything standalone as opposed to those smartwatches that NEED a smartphone and only have microcontrollers to achieve long battery runtimes. The reason for their long battery runtime is Tizen OS, the Gear 2 achieved significantly better battery runtimes after the OS change. There doesn't appear to be a single Wear OS device that has longer than one-day battery runtime (even with batteries similar to the Galaxy Watch's 472mAh battery, which lasts me 5 days (4 days with occasional GPS use and tracking a long walk)) without impeding fitness tracking or other functionality.

App availability isn't everything, so I don't get why everybody keeps coming up with that as an argument for Wear OS. Sure, apps might be nice, but the more popular options like Strava and Komoot exist on Wear OS as well. I don't need Wear OS for that.

Didn't ask. 

Quote

And given the fact that I came from a Fitbit Charge 3 with a 7-day battery runtime, I don't want a smartwatch that lasts only a fraction of that. Sleep tracking and continuous HR/stress measurement are one thing that I expect from a fitness-centric wearable. Wear OS just doesn't have the battery runtime for that. I don't want to charge my wearable daily, no matter how fast it charges.

Wearing a versa right now. Honestly a crappy product. Only lasts 3-4 days with less than 5-10 minutes of active use daily. Everything is worn out and has been for a while, screen isn't scratch resistant whatsoever, large portions of the entire watch are stripped of paint, the watch functions very slowly under normal use, can't connect via bluetooth to any external devices, updates are extremely tedious to perform and take far longer than they should- and they take at least several attempts to go through, apps don't download, on and on. Worn it for perhaps, a year and a half, have been having these sorts of problems for the last year and they've only been getting worse. $150 wasted. 

[Sorenson]

14 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

What do people even see in smart watches? Tiny screen, terrible battery, firmware updates... 

 

And this thing is way cooler anyways:

 

 

Fitness tracking, listening to music while running without a phone, convenient way to pay for things, and just more convenient then picking up my phone sometimes. Mostly just fitness stuff though.

[ne0tic]

14 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

What do people even see in smart watches?

To listen to music when out running. I'm pretty sure you can't download 500 songs on that manual watch

[Entropy.]

Just now, Benji said:

Yeah, if you have such a negative opinion you should bring up points that validate that instead of just making everything look bad. "Oooh, I just dislike it!" Fine, and why? We'll never know.

Don't know what you're going on about. Reading through your comment that seems to be quite a common theme. I'm expressing my frustration with these products and I'm saying that in my opinion apple watches are superior in most ways, and I'm hoping for the best in the future. I'm not bringing up specific points because I don't need to. Don't care if you don't know why I dislike samsung and google watches. 

  

Quote

I'm picking out good points? At least I can find some, you don't bring up relevant point. Long update times? Have you ever used a PC in your life?

My point of references is a 2.5' hard drive on a 2014 system that runs at 4mbps. Takes well over an hour to download average updates. I'd say I have a fine amount of experience with shit updates. I'd expect a lightweight watch with solid state storage to be able to update in less than 45 minutes, and be able to do it in at least in two or three goes, instead of failing over half a dozen times straight. 

Quote

Not scratch resistant? What do you do with your wrist? Do you constantly smash it into a wall that it needs to do that?

Neither my Fitbit (oh, fun, my experience with a Fitbit device are completely opposite to yours) nor my Galaxy Watch have those issues.

Somewhat Lightly applied the metal on a usb connector to the screen. Scratch. Pencil with a bit of force. Scratch. Rub it against a wall. Scratch. 

Quote

And yes, just pointing out false facts and making everything look bad without being able to name what makes it "bad" is usually having no idea and looking for points that don't exist. "It is bad because it is!" is not a valid point. I guess you have never used a wearable by Samsung so you shouldn't be the one to talk anyway. I might as well say that the Apple Watch is a piece of trash because it's made by Apple and it isn't round, meaning it is not a "watch" because all beautiful watches are round. I don't because I haven't used one and can't judge it.

Have no idea where you're going with this bud. You're making assumptions, ignoring my arguments, repeating yourself several times for some reason...? Tell me where I said "it's bad because it is."