Samsung replaces the Galaxy Gear with a pair of Tizen-powered smartwatches

New Gear 2 and Gear 2 Neo go on sale worldwide in April.

Read the whole story

 

[Louis XVI]

Ghastly. The modern equivalent to 80s calculator watches.

 

[Slavor]

Well that's a spit in the face to the thousands of consumers who bought the first galaxy gear. You would think Samsung would want to stand by their consumers and product for at least a year after introducing it.

Now I'd be hesitant to buy any version one products from Samsung.

 

[cbf92009]

Samsung has taken a dumb idea and actually released a 2nd version of it.

 

[bbf]

Slavor[/url]":1jlxolxc]Well that's a spit in the face to the thousands of consumers who bought the first galaxy gear. You would think Samsung would want to stand by their consumers and product for at least a year after introducing it.

Now I'd be hesitant to buy any version one products from Samsung.

Wow... Are you kidding? Feeling betrayed when a company releases a *new* product?
There's no indication that Samsung is discontinuing support for the original Galaxy Gear, yet.
Should Samsung keep the same products for a year so you can feel smug in your tech purchase?
So they should not introduce a the Note 1/2 a year after the S series, cause that would make the S series purchasers jealous, right?

 

[theotherjim]

Wake me when its useful.

 

[Hammich]

Not to be reading too deep into this...but if Tizen is backed by Intel and Samsung, and Intel is trying to break into the ARM market, why couldn't this be powered by an Intel SoC?

 

[Shannara]

Slavor[/url]":24zwces1]Well that's a spit in the face to the thousands of consumers who bought the first galaxy gear. You would think Samsung would want to stand by their consumers and product for at least a year after introducing it.

Now I'd be hesitant to buy any version one products from Samsung.

Not really. People who pay to beta test ... have some kind of issue This is basically what they choose, they have no right to be upset.

 

[trs8]

Hopefully they open it up to all android phones and not just their own phones. I'd be willing it give this a shot.

 

[therealeffingaeiouy]

They should make a line of flava flav pendant clocks.

 

[thomsirveaux]

Hammich[/url]":21c3pwfe]Not to be reading too deep into this...but if Tizen is backed by Intel and Samsung, and Intel is trying to break into the ARM market, why couldn't this be powered by an Intel SoC?

Not saying it isn't possible, but Intel doesn't really do the whole "unnamed SoC" thing. Intel-powered phones and tablets have the same Intel logo emblazoned on them that most computers do, it's just how they roll.

 

[NoMorePosting]

Sounds a bit underwhelming still - those are pretty chunky watches, and no mention of a killer app / use yet.

A 2MP camera certainly ain't one - on a watch that will generally have a mobile phone nearby? Begs the question as to why. The old saying that the best camera you have is the one you carry - well in this case it isn't.

I'm also puzzled about how an 800MHz processor can be laggy when driving such a teeny tiny display. I've done 320x240 using a 100MHz processor personally (RX621) with plenty of headroom. Is android that much of an overhead?

 

[Hammich]

thomsirveaux[/url]":1xm6qbqp]

Hammich[/url]":1xm6qbqp]Not to be reading too deep into this...but if Tizen is backed by Intel and Samsung, and Intel is trying to break into the ARM market, why couldn't this be powered by an Intel SoC?

Not saying it isn't possible, but Intel doesn't really do the whole "unnamed SoC" thing. Intel-powered phones and tablets have the same Intel logo emblazoned on them that most computers do, it's just how they roll.

I could not find the ars link but did they not in the last couple of months announce a super small SoC meant for the wearable market?

 

[rex86]

Mistrose[/url]":1nn8ij55]Sounds a bit underwhelming still - those are pretty chunky watches, and no mention of a killer app / use yet.

Have you seen the size of that thing? The entire watch is a killer app. Works on the principle of throw and forget.

 

[thomsirveaux]

Hammich[/url]":d9i3gcq6]

thomsirveaux[/url]":d9i3gcq6]

Hammich[/url]":d9i3gcq6]Not to be reading too deep into this...but if Tizen is backed by Intel and Samsung, and Intel is trying to break into the ARM market, why couldn't this be powered by an Intel SoC?

Not saying it isn't possible, but Intel doesn't really do the whole "unnamed SoC" thing. Intel-powered phones and tablets have the same Intel logo emblazoned on them that most computers do, it's just how they roll.

I could not find the ars link but did they not in the last couple of months announce a super small SoC meant for the wearable market?

You're thinking of Edison, which is a dual-core 400MHz Quark CPU and some wireless interfaces combined together on an SD card-sized package: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Edison

This definitely isn't Edison, which seems to be headed for even smaller things (lots of Intel's demos were totally screen-free). My money's still on a dual-core Exynos 4 - remember, the original Gear's SoC was a dual-core Exynos 4212 with one core turned off.

 

[Midnitte]

Like the first Gear, the watches will only interface with compatible Galaxy phones and tablets and not products from other OEMs or software ecosystems.

So aim for a fraction of a fraction of the market? No one likes you Samsung....

 

[Epitope]

Slavor[/url]":3bca1zp2]Well that's a spit in the face to the thousands of consumers who bought the first galaxy gear. You would think Samsung would want to stand by their consumers and product for at least a year after introducing it.

Now I'd be hesitant to buy any version one products from Samsung.

Just because Apple releases products on a one year cadence does not mean other manufacturers should follow it. One of Samsung's biggest strengths is their ability to release products, receive feedback from the press and users, and then quickly release version 2, 3, 4, etc. Yes, their early versions won't be amazing. But their latter versions are solid.

 

[Hammich]

thomsirveaux[/url]":eviuplpy]

Hammich[/url]":eviuplpy]

thomsirveaux[/url]":eviuplpy]

Hammich[/url]":eviuplpy]Not to be reading too deep into this...but if Tizen is backed by Intel and Samsung, and Intel is trying to break into the ARM market, why couldn't this be powered by an Intel SoC?

Not saying it isn't possible, but Intel doesn't really do the whole "unnamed SoC" thing. Intel-powered phones and tablets have the same Intel logo emblazoned on them that most computers do, it's just how they roll.

I could not find the ars link but did they not in the last couple of months announce a super small SoC meant for the wearable market?

You're thinking of Edison, which is a dual-core 400MHz Quark CPU and some wireless interfaces combined together on an SD card-sized package: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Edison

This definitely isn't Edison, which seems to be headed for even smaller things (lots of Intel's demos were totally screen-free). My money's still on a dual-core Exynos 4 - remember, the original Gear's SoC was a dual-core Exynos 4212 with one core turned off.

Thanks for remembering Edison's name i was drawing a blank. I will conceed it's not the 400 MHz core they announced.

To your point about the Exynos 4(212), would a Tizen build and a dual core setup realize such a huge increase in power performance?

 

[Rhonin]

Louis XVI[/url]":1l1yd796]Ghastly. The modern equivalent to 80s calculator watches.

How about the Pulsar? Had one '79? Or so......
Then my favorite, the Casio Databank! WooHoo!

 

[karashata]

LuDux[/url]":3cg9dc06]Sad it's not OLED. [snip]

AMOLED is a type of OLED...

For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOLED

 

[Fatesrider]

fteoOpty[/url]":11x797a9]Since it has a faster dual-core SoC now, if the performance is snappy, then this would be a good product. Let us hope the price is closer to $200 so it can at least have a chance of larger market penetration. Good on Samsung to innovate further on the original product which was not bad but people tend to expect something else they do not know what that could be.

Au contraire, people DO know what they want. They want stand-alone functionality that replaces current devices with something more portable and convenient. In short, if a watch is going to be "smart", it needs to replace the "smart phone", not be a ventriloquist's dummy for one.

CAN it work with one? Sure. But it shouldn't HAVE TO in order to get the basic functions - the primary one would be PHONE CALLS. Text messages (in a read-only format) would be good for most people, but if they went larger (not deeper or taller, but something that takes advantage of the forearm more than this does much like the little strap-on device Chuck's father used in the TV series of the same name) then the full functionality of a smartphone could be replaced by a device that will never fall out of one's pocket or drop in a toilet.

Until smartwatches replace the need to carry around another device, the whole idea is nonsense because you're adding a device you literally do not need to own to get along. "Innovation" isn't expanding on a crap idea. It's replacing what's out there with something better, or making something new that fulfills a REAL need. So far, no smartwatch I've seen does that.

 

[Hammich]

Fatesrider[/url]":2z8m1a83]

fteoOpty[/url]":2z8m1a83]Since it has a faster dual-core SoC now, if the performance is snappy, then this would be a good product. Let us hope the price is closer to $200 so it can at least have a chance of larger market penetration. Good on Samsung to innovate further on the original product which was not bad but people tend to expect something else they do not know what that could be.

Au contraire, people DO know what they want. They want stand-alone functionality that replaces current devices with something more portable and convenient. In short, if a watch is going to be "smart", it needs to replace the "smart phone", not be a ventriloquist's dummy for one.

CAN it work with one? Sure. But it shouldn't HAVE TO in order to get the basic functions - the primary one would be PHONE CALLS. Text messages (in a read-only format) would be good for most people, but if they went larger (not deeper or taller, but something that takes advantage of the forearm more than this does much like the little strap-on device Chuck's father used in the TV series of the same name) then the full functionality of a smartphone could be replaced by a device that will never fall out of one's pocket or drop in a toilet.

Until smartwatches replace the need to carry around another device, the whole idea is nonsense because you're adding a device you literally do not need to own to get along. "Innovation" isn't expanding on a crap idea. It's replacing what's out there with something better, or making something new that fulfills a REAL need. So far, no smartwatch I've seen does that.

Would you accept a simple t9 style dumb phone, say OG moto razr, with a 5 inch smart watch(say iPhone 5s strapped your wrist)? That's what i read people wanting.

 

[fluxtatic]

Midnitte[/url]":2i7orfsr]

Like the first Gear, the watches will only interface with compatible Galaxy phones and tablets and not products from other OEMs or software ecosystems.

So aim for a fraction of a fraction of the market? No one likes you Samsung....

Consider if Apple ever does release a watch of their own. Is it realistic to think that it would be compatible with anything more than the past two generations of iPhone? Won't people hail it as the most brilliant device ever and go on and on about how ingenious Apple was for 'perfecting' the smart watch?

The Gear 2 doesn't look too bad - a little sense of scale would be nice, but this looks like a decent watch.

 

[Nami]

...yes. Yes. YES! TIZEN!?! YES! Finally, the hero of the mobile space has arisen. Not only is the platform open and backed by major players, but it is a STANDARDS-BASED platform, standards set by the partners. If Samsung can come out and promise me a nice smartphone before the end of the year with Tizen running on it I will ditch my plans of fleeing the sinking ship Android (I have a Nexus, and it has become apparent Google is trying to kill the platform) for Windows 8 Phone (specifically the Lumia Icon) and wait for it instead.

This year just keeps getting better. Hurry up Team-Tizen!

 

[deplorability]

fluxtatic[/url]":3m9yyfl3]

Midnitte[/url]":3m9yyfl3]

Like the first Gear, the watches will only interface with compatible Galaxy phones and tablets and not products from other OEMs or software ecosystems.

So aim for a fraction of a fraction of the market? No one likes you Samsung....

Consider if Apple ever does release a watch of their own. Is it realistic to think that it would be compatible with anything more than the past two generations of iPhone? Won't people hail it as the most brilliant device ever and go on and on about how ingenious Apple was for 'perfecting' the smart watch?

The Gear 2 doesn't look too bad - a little sense of scale would be nice, but this looks like a decent watch.

Because Apple differentiates itself by making its own stuff. I think your comparison is flawed. Samsung adopts an operating system that markets itself as free and open, so it should be perfectly understandable that some people were berated to know that the first Gear only worked with one device, despite the fact that it also ran Android.

 

[jeblis]

Better battery life, better looking. Not saying much, but in 5 years they may have an interesting product.

 

[afanen01]

thomsirveaux[/url]":6ajygyua]

Hammich[/url]":6ajygyua]Not to be reading too deep into this...but if Tizen is backed by Intel and Samsung, and Intel is trying to break into the ARM market, why couldn't this be powered by an Intel SoC?

Not saying it isn't possible, but Intel doesn't really do the whole "unnamed SoC" thing. Intel-powered phones and tablets have the same Intel logo emblazoned on them that most computers do, it's just how they roll.

I think he's just asking what's in it for Intel.

In this watch, probably nothing, as Intel has no chips in this power and price bracket. But by making sure tizen will also run on x86, they are insuring their future if the OS happens to become successful.


Edit: spelling.

 

[Nami]

afanen01[/url]":1cd9b405]

thomsirveaux[/url]":1cd9b405]

Hammich[/url]":1cd9b405]Not to be reading too deep into this...but if Tizen is backed by Intel and Samsung, and Intel is trying to break into the ARM market, why couldn't this be powered by an Intel SoC?

Not saying it isn't possible, but Intel doesn't really do the whole "unnamed SoC" thing. Intel-powered phones and tablets have the same Intel logo emblazoned on them that most computers do, it's just how they roll.

I think he's just asking what's in it for Intel.

In this watch, probably nothing, as Intel has no chips in this power and price bracket. But by making sure tizen will also run on x86, they are insuring their future if the OS happens to become successful.


Edit: spelling.

It is shocking to see that anyone on this site would find it curious why Intel is invested in Tizen OS. Intel is has become the leading manufacturer of AMR 64bit chips, this partnership with a platform that will use them only means they have more customers and will get more ARM orders for their industry leading fabs. It is also very likely Intel will start producing their own ARM flavor, since they can't seem to get the 1W area just right and Dual-Denver is right around the corner. And yes it is rather obvious that Intel wants to keep x86 as relevant as long as possible, that is also a rather obvious perk. Tizen is the future. I can't wait to see what will happen this year.

 

[Number29]

So we got rid of watches because we have phones in our pockets that do everything a watch does. Yet now we want a watch to tell us what our phones are doing. Yeah... No.

 

[Mitlov]

Fatesrider[/url]":96b156lp]Au contraire, people DO know what they want. They want stand-alone functionality that replaces current devices with something more portable and convenient. In short, if a watch is going to be "smart", it needs to replace the "smart phone", not be a ventriloquist's dummy for one.

That's not what I want. I want a smartphone with a 5" screen for emails, social media, watching videos, and playing games. But I also want a smartwatch. Here's what I personally want from it:

(1) Pedometer and heart-rate monitor to serve as an accurate activity tracker (syncing to the Fitbit app on my smartphone).
(2) Vibration notifications on my wrist, configurable how I want (just for voice calls, or just for my work email but not my personal email, etc). This way you can have your phone in a briefcase or purse and still get vibration-based silent alarms.
(3) Microphone and speaker for voice calls.
(4) Remote display for Google Maps turn-by-turn navigation, so I can just glance at my watch while I drive.

The first company that delivers those four things has my money.

 

[Slavor]

bbf[/url]":8cik47il]

Slavor[/url]":8cik47il]Well that's a spit in the face to the thousands of consumers who bought the first galaxy gear. You would think Samsung would want to stand by their consumers and product for at least a year after introducing it.

Now I'd be hesitant to buy any version one products from Samsung.

Wow... Are you kidding? Feeling betrayed when a company releases a *new* product?
There's no indication that Samsung is discontinuing support for the original Galaxy Gear, yet.
Should Samsung keep the same products for a year so you can feel smug in your tech purchase?
So they should not introduce a the Note 1/2 a year after the S series, cause that would make the S series purchasers jealous, right?

I don't think it's appropriate to compare the situation Samsung has with their note/s phone lines with what they've done with gear. The S and Note have clearly different target audience, while the gear 2's naming already indicates that it's a sequel, a follow up from the original device.

Inherent in my original opinion was an assumption that Samsung might drop support for the original watch earlier, since they have a follow up device. I'll admit I was being hasty, but don't be surprised if they do that.

 

[Slavor]

Epitope[/url]":2b9vaedv]

Slavor[/url]":2b9vaedv]Well that's a spit in the face to the thousands of consumers who bought the first galaxy gear. You would think Samsung would want to stand by their consumers and product for at least a year after introducing it.

Now I'd be hesitant to buy any version one products from Samsung.

Just because Apple releases products on a one year cadence does not mean other manufacturers should follow it. One of Samsung's biggest strengths is their ability to release products, receive feedback from the press and users, and then quickly release version 2, 3, 4, etc. Yes, their early versions won't be amazing. But their latter versions are solid.

IIRC, Samsung has released their flagship S line once a year since introducing it. Unless you're counting their note line, which wouldn't make sense because it's targeted at a different audience.

Note 3 (2014) =/= S4 version 2 (2014)

 

[scrishton]

we should be able to spend some hands-on time with the new watches there.

Wasn't 'hands on time' an earlier generation of watch? Something like...

The first hand is the hour hand. When it points to 1 that's one o'clock.

The second hand is the minute hand. And the third hand is the second hand.

When the minute hand points at 1 that's five. When it points to 2 it's ten. When it points to 3 thats quarter. The 5 is twenty five. And the 8 is twenty to.

Simple, isn't it. It'll never catch on.

 

[beebee]

Mitlov[/url]":3prsg3aq]

Fatesrider[/url]":3prsg3aq]Au contraire, people DO know what they want. They want stand-alone functionality that replaces current devices with something more portable and convenient. In short, if a watch is going to be "smart", it needs to replace the "smart phone", not be a ventriloquist's dummy for one.

That's not what I want. I want a smartphone with a 5" screen for emails, social media, watching videos, and playing games. But I also want a smartwatch. Here's what I personally want from it:

(1) Pedometer and heart-rate monitor to serve as an accurate activity tracker (syncing to the Fitbit app on my smartphone).
(2) Vibration notifications on my wrist, configurable how I want (just for voice calls, or just for my work email but not my personal email, etc). This way you can have your phone in a briefcase or purse and still get vibration-based silent alarms.
(3) Microphone and speaker for voice calls.
(4) Remote display for Google Maps turn-by-turn navigation, so I can just glance at my watch while I drive.

The first company that delivers those four things has my money.

Looking at your watch while driving? Please, no.

Using your watch as a speaker phone? Please no.

Items 1 and 2 are fine, though I'd want a Polar interface.

 

[ChrisG]

On the plus side, however, at least one of these new models now has a heart-rate monitor, which it always should've had in the first place. Mobile sensor tech, especially health-related sensors, are where it's at these days. The first Gear was like buying your pet a pet; pointless.

 

[loquacio]

Fatesrider[/url]":27a2be2z]
Au contraire, people DO know what they want. They want stand-alone functionality that replaces current devices with something more portable and convenient. In short, if a watch is going to be "smart", it needs to replace the "smart phone", not be a ventriloquist's dummy for one.

CAN it work with one? Sure. But it shouldn't HAVE TO in order to get the basic functions - the primary one would be PHONE CALLS. Text messages (in a read-only format) would be good for most people, but if they went larger (not deeper or taller, but something that takes advantage of the forearm more than this does much like the little strap-on device Chuck's father used in the TV series of the same name) then the full functionality of a smartphone could be replaced by a device that will never fall out of one's pocket or drop in a toilet.

Until smartwatches replace the need to carry around another device, the whole idea is nonsense because you're adding a device you literally do not need to own to get along. "Innovation" isn't expanding on a crap idea. It's replacing what's out there with something better, or making something new that fulfills a REAL need. So far, no smartwatch I've seen does that.

You may know what you want out of a smart watch, but I don't think people in general do. In fact, the feeling I get is that people are barely aware of the smart watch as an actual product, much less have a well defined idea of what they want out of one.

I think there will certainly be a niche for independent smart watches, but I don't see the majority of the market going that way. If voice was still the primary use for phones, sure. But it's not, and people aren't going to want to spend an extra few hundred (unsubsidized) dollars to get something with it radios and extra processing power they'll most likely never use.

(I admit the forearm computer is an interesting concept, as well as an actual application for flexible display tech, but I don't see that really catching on in the near future)

However, for the right (low) price, the current model of the smart watch as primarily a notification delivering accessory to a smartphone could take off. A tiny vibration directly against the wrist is both more discreet and more likely to actually be noticed by the intended target. Throw an earpiece into the mix and it's pretty useful for caller ID, especially if it saves you digging your Galaxy Ginormous S7 out of your pocket/bag.

They do have a ways to go. The devices need to get a bit slimmer and cheaper. Battery life could get better. Perhaps most importantly, they need to make them into more of a fashion accessory like a normal watch than just a tech object. That's really the biggest hurdle. They could make smart watches with a neural interface, the processing power of a high end desktop, and a battery life of a year, and they still won't sell until you can get twelve different models with interchangeable multicoloured bands, designer logos, and optional 24k gold embellishments.

 

[shaun444]

I thought Samsung and Google were going to get a bit cozier what with Google backing out of the hardware race and the software patient deals they struck together... So it is interesting to see Samsung shun Android, though there is no reason why it cannot use both OS's. I still think a "Google Now" style Android watch would be the best idea, especially coupled with Moto X's voice recognition...

 

[darke]

Epitope[/url]":168k2uz5]

Slavor[/url]":168k2uz5]Well that's a spit in the face to the thousands of consumers who bought the first galaxy gear. You would think Samsung would want to stand by their consumers and product for at least a year after introducing it.

Now I'd be hesitant to buy any version one products from Samsung.

Just because Apple releases products on a one year cadence does not mean other manufacturers should follow it. One of Samsung's biggest strengths is their ability to release products, receive feedback from the press and users, and then quickly release version 2, 3, 4, etc. Yes, their early versions won't be amazing. But their latter versions are solid.

Even Apple don't do the one-year cadence. iPad 3rd to 4th generation was less then a 8 months; both of them were released the same year. Then there's the current two-year-ish cadence for the iPod.