Comments Locked

35 Comments

Back to Article

  • JoeyJoJo123 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    I guess Samsung finally gets that people only really wear watches not because they need a device that tells the time, but because it's a simple, convenient, and classical accessory to wear.

    It's a digital age, and most people can find out what time it is on their phone, their car's time display, on their computer, on a TV, on clocks, etc. It's not like it's 1892 and the only convenient source to find the exact time was a watch.

    That being said, I do like more classic styled watches that Samsung's making here. Nothing in the market was really addressing this, even Apple Watches looked like a novelty item compared to these.

    Now if only they would contract Casio to help them make smart watches.
  • Samus - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    What I don't get is how Samsung is clearly taking cues from timepiece historia, making a beautiful wearable, while Apple essentially just made an iPod Nano with a wrist strap and a crown dial.

    As an Apple Watch owner and having always worn a watch since I can remember (I think the first watch I wore at age 4 when the McDonald's happy meal came with a timex watch) I love watches, but I don't love the Apple Watch. It is bulky and ugly, but at the same time I'm lost without it. Each time it's been mailed out for repair (3 times in a year) I go back to a dumb watch or my old Pebble and am half naked without a functional calendar, sms and navigation device on my wrist. The health benefits of the Apple Watch alone are astonishingly good from Strava when I ride my bike to it reminding me to stand up when I've been sitting too long.

    Of all companies, Apple shouldn't be the one so far behind on aesthetics.
  • MacBAir - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    So the Apple watch, that most likely has less than half the volume of this Samsung watch, is bulky and ugly, but somehow Samsung's 2x bigger watch isn't?

    It's as if you are lying.
  • Samus - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    It's bulky on my wrist because, since I have small wrists (and what they say about men with small wrists is not true, I assure you, it is quite alright down there - I feel I need to be very clear on this topic to the point I will talk about this topic more than the topic I am commenting on, so there) I have the small Apple Watch, which looks kind of ridiculous because its thick without being large (that's what she said.)

    /end Trump sarcasm
  • dsraa - Thursday, September 1, 2016 - link

    Blue Oyster Nightclub much?
  • name99 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    Oh please, can we drop the aesthetics nonsense. There is no such thing as absolute aesthetics, when it comes to watches or anything else. The same gothic cathedrals that we today consider beautiful were called first gothic as an insult. For every person who loves rococo, you'll find someone who loves minimalism.

    Samsung has adopted a style that matches the classic appearance of analog watches. Apple has adopted a style that matches what you'd expect from a wrist computer. One looks backward. one looks forward.

    Vastly more interesting is the issues that AREn't covered here: the size of the device, how well it works in standard usage scenarios, how it compares to an Apple Watch running WatchOS3 (the real comparison would be against an Apple Watch 2, but obviously that's not feasible yet), things like that.
    What's the nature of this "always-on display" that (presumably) allows for such low power usage -- it is something like mirasol (limited color range) or color eInk (slow)?

    It's not clear how best to benchmark (performance, power) these devices, but I would hope that the review sites are already thinking about this.
    One obvious test is of launch times (that's clearly a pre-WatchOS 3 pain point, and may be a Gear/Wear pain point?) but that becomes a less than helpful test if Apple (and everyone else?) begin aggressively "pre-loading" commonly used apps.
    Another Apple pain point is how slow Siri is to launch and to react, so that might be something worth benchmarking on all the platforms?

    As for battery, again that's tough. By far the biggest power draw on Apple Watch seems to be the heart monitor --- which means that a competitor could claim substantially longer battery life just by test heart rate say every 30 min rather than Apple's every 10 min.

    Point of all this rambling is that there are phenomenal technical issues to be discussed here wrt all vendors. How about, for fsck' sake, in the light of this, and on a technical site, people SHUT THE FSCK UP about the ridiculously boring issue of "Well I think this one looks prettier than that one". Go discuss that on Vogue.com or on your Pinterest board, but how about we try to stick to technical issues here, huh?
  • name99 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    Sorry, Samus, that wasn't directed at you personally so much as this entire damn set of comments.
  • name99 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    OK, now on to more useful information.
    One can compare the size of Apple watch to competitors (at the time, two years ago) here:
    https://9to5mac.com/2015/03/12/look-how-much-sleek...

    Comparing against the Gear S3 specifically,
    Apple small is 38.6 x 33.3 x 10.5 mm = 13.5 cm^3
    S3 is 46mm round x 12.9mm=21.4 cm^3

    The current Apple watch (large, I don't know the number for small) battery capacity is 246mAh.
    Next Apple watch is supposed to be 334 mAh (36% larger)
    Gear S3 is 380 mAh. (So 55% larger than Apple Watch today).

    Given the 28nm process used, the discrepancy between what is claimed and Apple today is astonishing. Apple tomorrow (ie WatchOS 3) likely has comparable performance, but there will still be a 3x or so difference in claimed battery life, for a 1.55x difference in battery capacity (and supposed always-on screen). I'm sure the more rabid fans will be happy to claim that this is all because Samsung roolz and Apple droolz, so the one can write superb power-optimized software while the other couldn't find it's ass with both eyes wide open; but I'd be interested in a rather more uh, technical, take on the issue.

    My gut assumption is that both the OS and the hardware are doing rather different things, thus targeting different tech points. My guess is that Samsung is targeting the "watch+" model that Pebble went down, so (my GUESS --- tell me if I am wrong) the screen does not have the performance or color range of Apple (can it play movies, for example? could it in theory support APIs like SpriteKit and SceneKit?), there is less frequent chatter back and forth with the phone, and the sensors update less often.
    Meanwhile Apple is targeting the "wrist computer" model with all that implies in terms of expectations from the screen and in how aggressively the watch remains synched with the phone.
  • FunBunny2 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    -- Apple has adopted a style that matches what you'd expect from a wrist computer.

    the classic wrist watch is square/rectangular and curved around the wrist.
  • Notmyusualid - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    I use mine for running.

    I also much prefer the big 4:3 type of screen on my Gear S than the circular types since then. Easier to read, and touch.

    The GPS with S-Health plot out my time / avg speed / and many other things.

    I don't hit the road without it now, but the GPS aquisition time is a PIA.

    As with the last one, the side buttons are the best idea here. Gear S touch screen can be activated by your jacket etc, pocket-dialling people anywhere in the world. With side buttons for activation, this could be prevented entirely.

    I've not worn my Casio GPS watch since I bought the Gear S.
  • Tams80 - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    The S2 Classic is basically the same, so they've 'had' it for at least a year.
  • Drumsticks - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    Nice looking watch. 3 days of battery life would be great and certainly acceptable for a smartwatch - you could get through a weekend without having to worry about charging it. The Gear watches probably only work with Galaxy devices though, correct? If so, that's a shame. It looks like something I'd like to pick up but I'm not replacing my nexus for it. Hopefully there'll be some new generation watches from Huawei or others that will be a good fit; I'm hoping 2016 is a decent year to buy into the smartwatch world.
  • JoshHo - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    The spec is for any Android 4.4+ device with at least 1.5 GB of RAM. The Gear app is on the Play Store. However Samsung emphasizes that the "best experience" is with Galaxy devices.
  • Drumsticks - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    Ah, thanks. Do you or anybody else happen to know hiw that experience actually differs?
  • aebiv - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    It isn't terribly different. Just some settings to check to enable it to send notifications and such. That said, I did notice a bit of a delay at times (few seconds) when using the S2 with a Nexus 6P.

    Still fully functional.
  • solipsism - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    There's evidence to suggest Samsung is interested in getting Gear users from both Android and iOS platforms.

    » http://www.macrumors.com/2016/04/14/samsung-gear-s...
  • solipsism - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    » https://9to5mac.com/2016/08/31/samsung-gear-s3-iph...
  • Gadgety - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    "Other than this size issue the thickness of the watch is fairly respectable."

    Yes, specifically how thick is it? Since it's not specified I would guess it borders on scary thick. Show a photo of it on your wrist showing the thickness, please. Better thick than LG's non- replaceable-wrist-band-due-to-antenna, but still, would be nice to know. LGs Urbane LTE watch is just under 15mm thick.
  • FunBunny2 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    -- Since it's not specified I would guess it borders on scary thick.

    doesn't look much thicker than those neato chrono watches on cable infomercial channels.
  • JoshHo - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    The spec sheet lists thickness at 13mm.
  • Lolimaster - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    I still believe that "smartwatches" should come with e-ink, no OLED and at least a smal sollar cell.
  • Morawka - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    wow this device is a non-starter if it really isnt waterproof. They need to at least match the Apple Watch in water resistance. Apple did a good job by under promising and over delivering on the apple watches water rating. i've had mine almost 2 years, and its still going strong. I shower with it almost every day, wash the dishes with it on, go swimming at the lake, and not a single drop of water has ever gotten into the watch.
  • solipsism - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    1) With an IP68 rating, it exceeds the Apple Watch, while the stated water resistance is on-par with it.

    2) Nothing made by man is waterproof. At some point, the pressure will be too much. Would more than 1 meter for 30 minutes be nice? Sure, but even that is more than suitable for swimming laps and bathing.
  • Tams80 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    I don't know why you seem so ardent to defend the Apple Watch.

    Apple haven't given it an IP68 rating because they don't feel confident enough that the Apple Watch can maintain it (and aren't as trusting of users to misuse the Watch).

    Samsung feel that their watch is likely to maintain those standards and are prepared to put up with issues users may have.* *with the usual asterisk of course.

    I doubt the Apple Watch is more waterproof; it's probably slightly less.

    As for your comprehension of the article: you clearly misunderstood it. "but I wouldn't actually try to use the device in a pool or shower as water damage isn't covered" also applies to the Apple Watch. Apple won't cover you for water damage either. Joshua's comments are clearly about if you care for warranty. Swimming and showering with an Apple Watch clearly shows you don't care.
  • name99 - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    Apple seems to feel, officially, that showering is OK. Here's what they say:
    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205000

    Officially the Apple spec is IPX7. The X is not important, what matters is the 7 vs 8. Apple's 7 covers 1m of water, for 30 min or less. Samsung's 8 is a lot more vague. It is supposed to be stronger than 7, but the wording is REALLY weaselly. You could argue that Apple's 7 promise is a STRONGER promise than Samsung's 8.
    The language is here. I'd recommend anyone check it out before venturing an opinion on this subject.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code

    As a practical matter, I think they're both essentially identical --- showering yes, bathing probably (if the bath is not too long), swimming is OK if you only swim on the surface, may be a problem if you like to dive deeper than a meter or so.

    Note that Apple have an additional concern (which has also limited the extent of what they say) namely the behavior of different bands. Obviously some bands (eg my elastomer sports band) have no problem, but some bands (eg some of the fancy leathers) can be harmed by water. This is a concern that Samsung and others don't have to deal with as long as they are not selling fancy bands.
  • Tams80 - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    Apple's 7 is the same as the only 7 rating accepted.

    Yes, the 8 rating is vaguer. It does mean at least the same as a 7 rating. For Samsung
  • Tams80 - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    Sorry, incomplete comment.

    The closest I can find for Samsung is for the S7 at 1.5m http://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS000478...

    Samsung also produce own brand leather straps that are included with the Classic models.
  • KPOM - Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - link

    Did they mention price and any premium bands? I'm a bit surprised they didn't release a smaller version aimed at women. Apple mainstreaming the Hermès show there is a market for upmarket smart watches, so others would be wise to take advantage as well.
  • solipsism - Thursday, September 1, 2016 - link

    Being a round display, going smaller is an issue. This isn't an issue with the fashion of women's watches in the 20th century because you only need to look at the watch face, not interact with it. I'd bet that even a 38mm radius of the Apple Watch would be too small to be a good experience, which is probably why Samsung settled on an even larger display height than the 42mm Apple Watch, despite having significantly less display area/pixels.
  • Tams80 - Friday, September 2, 2016 - link

    I've read that are planning to continue with the S2 watches. As the S3s are essentially just larger, with a slightly different design and the larger battery that the size increase allows; it seems pointless for them to produce smaller versions.
  • beginner99 - Thursday, September 1, 2016 - link

    The last time I wore a watch was over 15 years ago. It's battery died and I never bothered to change it. So you can see I will probably never get a smartwatch. Don't see the point of these devices.
  • zodiacfml - Thursday, September 1, 2016 - link

    Same here, useful for realtime information on the go which is already covered by fitness devices.
  • solipsism - Thursday, September 1, 2016 - link

    You don't see a need for yourself or the point for them existing or being an interest to anyone?
  • hiraparapradip - Thursday, November 24, 2016 - link

    nice
  • hiraparapradip - Thursday, November 24, 2016 - link

    themobileupdate.com open the best review in samsung gear watch s3

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now