Why I (so far) do not believe in "smart watches"
In recent months, the Internet is the only talk of "smart watches" - such companions of smartphones and tablets, which supposedly facilitate the process of interaction with the latter.
Indeed, in some cases - for example, in the case of the 6.4-inch Sony Xperia Z Ultra or even the 5.5-inch Lenovo K900 (by the way, we’ll soon publish its review) - with such a companion it would be much easier. Just because these devices are very large - and regularly get out of their pocket, backpack or bag is uncomfortable. I now e-mails come on average every ten minutes. Sometimes this is really something important, and sometimes some kind of notification from Facebook. So, in theory, “smart watches” would allow without getting a smartphone to find out from whom the letter is and whether it is worth it to reach into your pocket for it.
Sony Xperia Z Ultra next to iPhone 5 - see the difference and imagine "convenience"
')
Nevertheless, I personally do not yet believe in “smart watches” - at least in the perspective of the coming years.
The first reason is autonomous work. Every day I charge my “dialer” phone, a smartphone, and sometimes a tablet. Well, this is specifically my case - most people usually use only one phone or smartphone. However, any second (or fourth, like mine) gadget that needs to be recharged daily adds inconvenience. For example, I could not get on with the Bluetooth-headset just because I constantly forgot to charge it. And then I went with a single phone.
Samsung Galaxy Gear
I do not believe that the average “smart watch” of the sample of 2013 on one battery charge can live more than a day or two. Even though their lion’s share (led by Samsung Galaxy Gear) will focus primarily on devices with Android 4.3 and higher, where the Bluetooth Low Energy profile is implemented, we still need to prepare for one day of battery life. Is it acceptable for ordinary watches to which we are all accustomed to for several decades? Not at all: my usual watches (that is, not “smart”) have been on the same battery for two years already. And, most likely, they will live the same amount. Meanwhile, the revolution in the field of batteries for mobile devices - phones, smartphones, tablets, and now also “smart watches” - all is not and is not: the developers manage to “squeeze” a maximum of a week, and even then by sacrificing the elegance of the case. (Suffice to recall the Highscreen Boost smartphone on Android, which works for a week, but has a thickness of 14.5 mm and weighs 185 g.)
Perhaps the solution to this problem, including for “smart watches”, could be wireless charging surfaces with an area of ​​a desk (he threw his entire “warehouse” of pocket gadgets there and took them ready for use in the morning), but so far such devices are on the market are missing.
The second reason is convenience (plus a few more thoughts about power consumption). It is because of the power consumption that most “smart watches” with color screens will require pressing a button to show time. Such a problem was with the iPod nano of the previous generation, which many used as a wrist watch paired with numerous straps, the Samsung Galaxy Gear also has this problem. More precisely, not quite so: when the hand is located along the body, the screen is turned off, but if you raise your hand to watch the time, it automatically lights up.
seventh generation iPod nano as a wrist watch
Cool, of course, but if I sit, for example, on a pair, and the hand is on the table - what then? Press the button or pull your hand? The option, in my opinion, is not too elegant. Moreover, the Galaxy Gear screen is made using the Super AMOLED technology, that is, it does not consume energy at all in the case of black display - the pixels simply do not work, they are turned off. That is, the energy would have to spend only on the demonstration of white or any other numbers. Nevertheless, the developers did not implement the ability to permanently display the time without unnecessary "movements".
Perhaps this problem was solved by Qualcomm - at IFA 2013 in Berlin, she presented Toq smart watches with a paper-like Mirasol color screen, which does not consume energy when displaying a static picture. This technology was not found in the book readers (there were a couple of experimental models, but this was the end), so Qualcomm decided to use it in such a thing. True, the American company did not really mention the characteristics of its watches, and we will not be able to work as a producer of consumer goods. So when this “semi-concept” will receive the status of a serial product - an open question.
Qualcomm Toq
The third reason is compatibility. At one time, I had a Sony Ericsson LiveView “smart watch”, a kind of “grandfather” of the current Sony SmartWatch and SmartWatch 2. However, I did not use the Sony Ericson smartphone, but the HTC Sensation and Motorola RAZR as the main “pocket communication device”. So with them the accessory worked unstably - with the first still somehow, but with the second - the horror: regular breaks in communication, lack of notifications and stuff like that. Naturally, since the days of the Sony Ericsson LiveView a lot of water has flowed, and modern smart watches will certainly be more stable and will demonstrate a higher level of compatibility. Or will not? Samsung is only talking about support for Galaxy Note 3, in October there will be updates for the Galaxy S4 and Galaxy SIII, and then Galaxy Gear will work with them. But the devices from other manufacturers and many models from Samsung itself, apparently, "fly by".
Sony Ericsson LiveView
On the other hand, this is normal - when a particular smartphone maker launches accessories for its gadgets. But after all, the emerging market of “smart watches” will soon be overwhelmed by a wave of models from other companies - which do not produce mobile devices, but only create accessories of the day. As a result, we get a pleiad of watches that have been tested only for compatibility with a certain number of popular and expensive smartphones - iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, some Sony models. But compatibility with all models of Bluetooth adapters installed in mobile devices, as well as with all versions of Android (of which there are many, and even 4.3, most devices will not receive soon), it will be unrealistic to guarantee. So the purchase of “smart watches”, I am afraid, can turn into an attraction like “earn or not earn, and if it does not work, what to do?”.
Sony SmartWatch 2
Of course, you can come up with another car of reasons, but these three seem to me the most important. As another “half-reason”, prices can be mentioned - the Samsung Galaxy Gear will cost around 15,000 (the price of ordinary watches from not the latest manufacturer). On the other hand, the Sony SmartWatch 2 will be offered for 6,000 - so the price is more likely to depend on the manufacturer’s greed (although the capabilities of the Sony and Samsung solutions are not the same, they are still comparable, and the Japanese are weaker than the Korean and a half times). In general, the excitement around “smart watches” is not a manifestation of the real need for such accessories for everyone, but rather an attempt by manufacturers to create a new class of devices just to find new sources of profit for themselves. And, I'm afraid, the smart watch 2013-2014. "Thanks to" the use of technology of the current generation can hardly be called successful. Even as a fashion accessory, not to mention the replacement of conventional watches.
Indeed, in some cases - for example, in the case of the 6.4-inch Sony Xperia Z Ultra or even the 5.5-inch Lenovo K900 (by the way, we’ll soon publish its review) - with such a companion it would be much easier. Just because these devices are very large - and regularly get out of their pocket, backpack or bag is uncomfortable. I now e-mails come on average every ten minutes. Sometimes this is really something important, and sometimes some kind of notification from Facebook. So, in theory, “smart watches” would allow without getting a smartphone to find out from whom the letter is and whether it is worth it to reach into your pocket for it.
Sony Xperia Z Ultra next to iPhone 5 - see the difference and imagine "convenience"
')
Nevertheless, I personally do not yet believe in “smart watches” - at least in the perspective of the coming years.
The first reason is autonomous work. Every day I charge my “dialer” phone, a smartphone, and sometimes a tablet. Well, this is specifically my case - most people usually use only one phone or smartphone. However, any second (or fourth, like mine) gadget that needs to be recharged daily adds inconvenience. For example, I could not get on with the Bluetooth-headset just because I constantly forgot to charge it. And then I went with a single phone.
Samsung Galaxy Gear
I do not believe that the average “smart watch” of the sample of 2013 on one battery charge can live more than a day or two. Even though their lion’s share (led by Samsung Galaxy Gear) will focus primarily on devices with Android 4.3 and higher, where the Bluetooth Low Energy profile is implemented, we still need to prepare for one day of battery life. Is it acceptable for ordinary watches to which we are all accustomed to for several decades? Not at all: my usual watches (that is, not “smart”) have been on the same battery for two years already. And, most likely, they will live the same amount. Meanwhile, the revolution in the field of batteries for mobile devices - phones, smartphones, tablets, and now also “smart watches” - all is not and is not: the developers manage to “squeeze” a maximum of a week, and even then by sacrificing the elegance of the case. (Suffice to recall the Highscreen Boost smartphone on Android, which works for a week, but has a thickness of 14.5 mm and weighs 185 g.)
Perhaps the solution to this problem, including for “smart watches”, could be wireless charging surfaces with an area of ​​a desk (he threw his entire “warehouse” of pocket gadgets there and took them ready for use in the morning), but so far such devices are on the market are missing.
The second reason is convenience (plus a few more thoughts about power consumption). It is because of the power consumption that most “smart watches” with color screens will require pressing a button to show time. Such a problem was with the iPod nano of the previous generation, which many used as a wrist watch paired with numerous straps, the Samsung Galaxy Gear also has this problem. More precisely, not quite so: when the hand is located along the body, the screen is turned off, but if you raise your hand to watch the time, it automatically lights up.
seventh generation iPod nano as a wrist watch
Cool, of course, but if I sit, for example, on a pair, and the hand is on the table - what then? Press the button or pull your hand? The option, in my opinion, is not too elegant. Moreover, the Galaxy Gear screen is made using the Super AMOLED technology, that is, it does not consume energy at all in the case of black display - the pixels simply do not work, they are turned off. That is, the energy would have to spend only on the demonstration of white or any other numbers. Nevertheless, the developers did not implement the ability to permanently display the time without unnecessary "movements".
Perhaps this problem was solved by Qualcomm - at IFA 2013 in Berlin, she presented Toq smart watches with a paper-like Mirasol color screen, which does not consume energy when displaying a static picture. This technology was not found in the book readers (there were a couple of experimental models, but this was the end), so Qualcomm decided to use it in such a thing. True, the American company did not really mention the characteristics of its watches, and we will not be able to work as a producer of consumer goods. So when this “semi-concept” will receive the status of a serial product - an open question.
Qualcomm Toq
The third reason is compatibility. At one time, I had a Sony Ericsson LiveView “smart watch”, a kind of “grandfather” of the current Sony SmartWatch and SmartWatch 2. However, I did not use the Sony Ericson smartphone, but the HTC Sensation and Motorola RAZR as the main “pocket communication device”. So with them the accessory worked unstably - with the first still somehow, but with the second - the horror: regular breaks in communication, lack of notifications and stuff like that. Naturally, since the days of the Sony Ericsson LiveView a lot of water has flowed, and modern smart watches will certainly be more stable and will demonstrate a higher level of compatibility. Or will not? Samsung is only talking about support for Galaxy Note 3, in October there will be updates for the Galaxy S4 and Galaxy SIII, and then Galaxy Gear will work with them. But the devices from other manufacturers and many models from Samsung itself, apparently, "fly by".
Sony Ericsson LiveView
On the other hand, this is normal - when a particular smartphone maker launches accessories for its gadgets. But after all, the emerging market of “smart watches” will soon be overwhelmed by a wave of models from other companies - which do not produce mobile devices, but only create accessories of the day. As a result, we get a pleiad of watches that have been tested only for compatibility with a certain number of popular and expensive smartphones - iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, some Sony models. But compatibility with all models of Bluetooth adapters installed in mobile devices, as well as with all versions of Android (of which there are many, and even 4.3, most devices will not receive soon), it will be unrealistic to guarantee. So the purchase of “smart watches”, I am afraid, can turn into an attraction like “earn or not earn, and if it does not work, what to do?”.
Sony SmartWatch 2
Of course, you can come up with another car of reasons, but these three seem to me the most important. As another “half-reason”, prices can be mentioned - the Samsung Galaxy Gear will cost around 15,000 (the price of ordinary watches from not the latest manufacturer). On the other hand, the Sony SmartWatch 2 will be offered for 6,000 - so the price is more likely to depend on the manufacturer’s greed (although the capabilities of the Sony and Samsung solutions are not the same, they are still comparable, and the Japanese are weaker than the Korean and a half times). In general, the excitement around “smart watches” is not a manifestation of the real need for such accessories for everyone, but rather an attempt by manufacturers to create a new class of devices just to find new sources of profit for themselves. And, I'm afraid, the smart watch 2013-2014. "Thanks to" the use of technology of the current generation can hardly be called successful. Even as a fashion accessory, not to mention the replacement of conventional watches.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/195370/
All Articles