Sony has a Smartwatch Two

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But your phone is like a pocketwatch.


And this is the reason why manufacturers feel that a smartwatch could be the next thing. Someone could soon be saying:
"The idea of having to take my phone out of my pocket and switch it on to find out who is calling, as opposed to simply glancing at my wrist, strikes me as ridiculous."

Which makes it a retrograde step... wristwatches replaced pocket watches precisely because the time was available with a glance at the wrist rather than digging in pockets, pulling on chains or getting out of carried bag - the watch is more convenient than the phone...

Now come up with a smartwatch that is rugged and has a holographic display that is size-independant of the watch then that'll be a gadget people may really want...

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Which makes it a retrograde step... wristwatches replaced pocket watches precisely because the time was available with a glance at the wrist rather than digging in pockets, pulling on chains or getting out of carried bag - the watch is more convenient than the phone...

Now come up with a smartwatch that is rugged and has a holographic display that is size-independant of the watch then that'll be a gadget people may really want...

My point is that if you have a phone you already have a pocketwatch.

A wrist watch may be more convenient if your fashion choices mean that you can't have have your phone somewhere where you can easily access it, but it isn't replacing your phone.

If someone thinks that the time it takes to fish out the phone justifies wearing another device on the wrist for easy access, then they should also think that wearing a smartwatch is justified since it provides easy access for other functions.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If someone thinks that the time it takes to fish out the phone justifies wearing another device on the wrist for easy access, then they should also think that wearing a smartwatch is justified since it provides easy access for other functions.

Not necessarily true. I wouldn't want a watch that had to be recharged every few days, for example. An analogue watch is an example of a single-function device that does a single job extremely well. A smartwatch with an LCD display, for example, would probably not be easily readable in sunlight.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not necessarily true. I wouldn't want a watch that had to be recharged every few days, for example. An analogue watch is an example of a single-function device that does a single job extremely well. A smartwatch with an LCD display, for example, would probably not be easily readable in sunlight.

But these are complaints about the current, early generation smartwatches. The display on my dumbphone is easily readable in sunlight, and they could make the watches with material that converts body heat to voltage so that you don't have to worry about charging.

This is different from the other complaints about the redundancy of having a device on your wrist that does some of the same things as the device in your pocket.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not necessarily true. I wouldn't want a watch that had to be recharged every few days, for example. An analogue watch is an example of a single-function device that does a single job extremely well. A smartwatch with an LCD display, for example, would probably not be easily readable in sunlight.

Well, early adopters always have to put up with some inconvenience. Surely things will improve with time though. eInk displays would likely be a huge step forward, and it's likely that less energy hungry electronics will be used once consumers and vendors figure out that this isn't the next platform for Angry Birds (thus you don't need the processing power).

Oh, and please don't mention fashion accessory in the context of watches. I had to argue with a saleslady to buy a women's watch the last time around. At the time, men's watches were these huge glittery things because they were in fashion. (The other extreme were huge chunks of plastic that they called sports watches.) Some of the women's watches were quite handsome though, and quite like men's watches of old. Yet somehow it was considered immoral for a man to buy one because it wasn't the latest fashion trend for men.

(P.S. on the watches dying out bit: maybe it's because I work with younger people, or perhaps it's a city thing, or perhaps it's a Canadian thing, but it's getting kinda hard to find people who wear watches.)

[pl001]

Most people I know who wear watches today do so as a fashion accessory or for specific purposes like running. At the least, fashion trumps functionality when choosing one. If this wasn't the case, I think digital watches would be more popular, but they are now relegated almost exclusively to the sports market where function and value is a priority over form.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

(P.S. on the watches dying out bit: maybe it's because I work with younger people, or perhaps it's a city thing, or perhaps it's a Canadian thing, but it's getting kinda hard to find people who wear watches.)

I used to wear a watch. For about 15 years. Now I sit at my desk and have a clock on my PC and my deskphone. I stand up at my cubicle in a sea of cubicles and see no less than 8 clocks. I drive home and have a clock in my car. I get home for supper and my microwave and oven have clocks. I watch tv and have a clock in the program guide. I go to bed next to my alarm clock. And during all this time I have my phone with me.

I simply don't have much use for a watch anymore in my daily life. The only time I wear one is when I'm running, during which I really don't care about the time of day.

[daffy4u]

I still wear a watch. I'm a freelancer and my schedule is different from day to day. There is no such thing as "9 to 5 and weekends off" in my work. I sometimes lose track of the day and date so I have a watch that shows both (Timex Ironman).

As a woman, I sometimes wear clothes that do not have pockets and I don't want to search through my purse or backpack to find my phone just to check the time.

Maybe this is a generational thing. People from my generation, the Baby Boomer generation, definitely seem to wear watches and feel the need for them and understand their usefulness. And we would have zero patience for a watch that needed recharging EVER. We are use to self-winding watches and watches which run for years on a single battery.

[wodin]

I see all the big tech companies and a few startups jumping on the smart watch bandwagon, but where are the watch makers? They're the guys with the experience with what folks want to wear on the wrists.

Come on Casio and Seiko and Citizen. Build us a smart watch that people will actually buy!

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by jswinden

Nonsense, plenty of people, myself included, still wear watches. And a person who doesn't know his phone is ringing in his pocket or holster has no excuse what with vibration mode being a standard on most phones. It only takes a second to pull the phone out and look to see who is calling.

It would generally be closer to 30 seconds for me to pull my phone out. And if I'm driving then it might be several hours-unless I know, without pulling my phone out, that the call is worth answering.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by wodin

I see all the big tech companies and a few startups jumping on the smart watch bandwagon, but where are the watch makers? They're the guys with the experience with what folks want to wear on the wrists.

Come on Casio and Seiko and Citizen. Build us a smart watch that people will actually buy!

Did you know that Casio made a tablet? Guess how much it costs.

Spoiler:

Source

Casio has announced the Paper Writer V-N500 which carries a price tag of ¥200,000. That is about $2,500 per tablet.

[fjtorres]

One view of what a successful smartwatch would do:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-576...orth-the-wait/

Functionally, this smartwatch would pair with a smartphone by simply tapping the two together and confirming (the Galaxy Gear gets that part right) and then it will mostly just work auto-magically.
It shouldn't try to foist a dumbed-down smartphone experience into the watch. It doesn't need a camera. And it doesn't have to be another phone interface. (A Bluetooth headset does that much better.) You don't need to send messages from it.
The ideal smartwatch will focus on three things it can uniquely do well:

1. Notification alerter
2. Health tracker
3. Security device

The big win for a smartwatch is notifications, and there's already consensus building around that in the tech community. We all look at our smartphones too much and it is disruptive, even rude in social settings. The smartwatch that does notifications right will win, because we all have times when we miss a text message or a call or a meeting notice because the smartphone is out of sight or silenced.
However, the goal should not be focused on acting on the notifications from the smartwatch itself. It should be to alert and preview: important messages, breaking news in your interest areas, key social-media triggers, upcoming meetings, sports scores for your teams, traffic alerts, flight status, and other details based on what's important to you.

There's more but basically the idea is "more watch, less phone".
Except for the plumbing, it would be a lot like this:

http://gigaom.com/2013/09/03/what-mi...han-you-think/

Me, I think a slightly smarter watch is better than a crippled smartphone-wannabe and lighter, cheaper is way better.

I also don't expect any vendor to go there.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

One view of what a successful smartwatch would do:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-576...orth-the-wait/

I think that the author doesn't realize that it is rude to look at your watch as well. What is rude is having a distraction when you are supposed to pay attention to the other people. It doesn't matter if the notification is on your phone or on your watch, what matters in social settings is that it distracts you.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I think that the author doesn't realize that it is rude to look at your watch as well. What is rude is having a distraction when you are supposed to pay attention to the other people. It doesn't matter if the notification is on your phone or on your watch, what matters in social settings is that it distracts you.

Kind of like Senator McCain getting caught by a photographer playing a game on his smartphone during what was no doubt a boring Senate hearing or meeting! We all do things like that. It might be rude to look at your watch but it is less rude than saying what is really on your mind like, "What a boring effing meeting, can we just go back to work?!?"