Technically not just a watch might be more accurate since they describe one of its functions as a "GPS sports watch" and sell watch straps for it (as well as bike mounts, armbands, clothing-clips).
Yes, the nice thing about the MOTOACTV is that it runs independently, you can sync it when you are at home, or near your Android phone. The music player is surprisingly good and the headset is OK too.
Another nice one: if you decide to take the phone with you, it functions as a wireless headset!
We actually use an Android app on a rooted ACTV, strapped to a hexacopter to map out Wifi hotspots. It works in limited tests, but for obvious reasons we would never take it out into the real world.
It's a really good, cheap, embedded platform. I wouldn't be surprised (despite the so called firewall) that Motorola engineers are working with the WIMM Labs folks on the Nexus Watch.
My ideal smartwatch would recharge itself from my body heat/movement, be waterproof, have a cell phone/wifi, and best of all be pay-as-you-go. 90% of the time I'd be on wifi so it would be free anyway like T-Mobile. GPS and bluetooth would be nice but not critical.
But just being able to never worry about forgetting it, or having to charge the dang thing, and be able to contact anyone anytime would be very sci fi. And of course the most important feature of all would have to be: disabling it easily to prevent interruption.
I see a day when devices won't need GPS when outside; access points/cell towers can have precision/differential GPS receivers and your device's location is calculated using RF signal strength/triangulation data (802.11ac already uses beam steering for better reception/throughput). I'm aware this is already done using CellID and signal strength data; I'm simply saying it'll become more accurate and widespread.
If you can offload the energy hungry tasks, these devices become much more realistic faster.
Will smartwatches ever be a real thing? Everyone in the developed world has a mobile phone, do we need another device that does the same things albeit rather limited that our phones are already capable of doing? I like the idea of Google Glass, but a smartwatch, really?
Having had a pebble since shortly after they started shipping, I have found that it's helpful to be able to glance at a summary of each notification that comes in so I can address the urgent stuff and ignore the less important ones. This is only for me personally, but quickly glancing at a sentence vs pulling out the phone (,turning on the screen, getting distracted by other things on that screen) is far less disruptive to whatever task I'm currently working on.
Of course there are plenty of downsides. Constantly glancing at your watch is just as rude if not worse than looking at your smartphone in a meeting, conversation, etc. As you mentioned, there is the high cost for a fairly dumb device. Charging it. And depending on the person, every notification is wedged that much further in to your daily life which is probably not for everybody.
I'm not sure there is a lot of value in a super interactive smart watch that allows you to write texts, make calls and take pictures. The interface seems to be small enough that it's kind of prohibitive among other things. But as a read-only satellite device that displays information from a smartphone/tablet/etc, a smart watch can definitely be a thing.
The long running hardware design fallacy is that the new form factor must have all the features of the precursor. Remember ~2000 when all smartphones attempted to run a Windows desktop, poorly?
Despite all of efforts in the wrist space, the Pebble is the best in my mind. Why do you want a stylus? Who would type emails on their wrist? My Pebble kicks butt as it reduces the needs I have for my phone, just as the smartphone and tablet reduced the need to find a desktop, but didn't replace them.
Glance is the feature I love a lot on my Nokia as well. The glance screen allows me to look at things like time on my phone without even turning it on.
I had a feature kind of like that on a flip phone about a decade ago, a really small second screen you could look at without flipping open the phone, to see who's calling or the current time, and battery level.
All you need do is standardize android phones to have a secondary screen on the other side that never turns off or needs to be unlocked, eink or whatever. Then transition that small screen to also display on your wrist.
That's great idea! Standardizing on an interface that can be implemented by standard phones as well means there'd probably be much better and more widespread support.
I suppose they could even support the "small secondary screen" interface on phones without a physical secondary screen, by simply displaying its contents inside the lock screen.
I used to have a foldable phone with a small secondary screen like that as well; it really was nice, and would be even better if it didn't need a button-press to activate (e-ink or whatever), as turning on the screen is always about 80% of the effort when I just want to see the time... [they can't make the button too easy to press after all, to avoid accidental activations...]
If smartwatches are ever going to be a thing, they're going to have to not look like watches. Who wants a clunky, dorky looking watch like the Samsung version? Maybe a few of us geeks in the Valley, but certainly not mainstream and appearance-conscious consumers. I imagine I'd have had my ass kicked if I wore something like that to high school.
(Nike got it right with the Fuel Band: if you're going to put something on your body, it becomes as much a fashion accessory as a gadget. Design counts.)
Furthermore, the watch is going to have to do something that smartphones can't. It needs to go above and beyond, taking full advantage of whatever areas wearables can take advantage of. Google Glass I get. The possibilities there are fantastic (if the design leaves a bit to be desired). But a watch? It had better do more than just display the weather and run awkward, one-handed variations of Android apps on a smaller screen.
I'm not convinced there is a market for a smartwatch, such as it is. But if there ever will be, it'll be something entirely different from what we've been seeing so far. The technology exists to make thin, translucent, bendable screens -- so in theory, you could have a smart "bracelet" that is entirely a screen. That's somewhat more interesting, at least design wise. But we still need real-world functionality that a smartphone can't replicate.
So far, most of these smartwatch specs remind me of the Segway: a very minimal improvement in quality of life at a tremendous cost in personal appearance. That math rarely works out well for consumer products.
> Maybe a few of us geeks in the Valley, but certainly not mainstream and appearance-conscious consumers. I imagine I'd have had my ass kicked if I wore something like that to high school.
I get your point, but using high school as an example is detracting from it. We're not in high school anymore, nobody is going to get their asses kicked for wearing something. I'm sure if the most popular guy in high school showed up with the Samsung watch, he wouldn't get his ass kicked, either.
I think high school is a perfect example, actually. High schoolers are highly influential in popular culture, and many trends bubble up from there. "Getting my ass kicked" wasn't meant to be taken literally; it was more of a rhetorical device. But my point was that, for a device to be widely accepted, it has to be appealing as an accessory. People in high school are extremely image conscious. So are most people outside of high school, for that matter.
"We're not in high school anymore..."
You and I aren't, but millions of people are -- whether literally or metaphorically.
Mainstream people don't seem to have much of an issue walking around with a hearing aid, I mean blue tooth device on their heads.
As for the watch, make it work like science fiction where you can raise your wrist and talk and I bet a lot would join in. I would not mind having a wrist device, even if it only queried my phone in my pocket, which I give simple voice commands. Bonus points to being a real phone.
"How soon before it rains" "Call boss" "Time to next bus"
This sounds like a similar argument that was made against tablets a few years ago. Tablets aren't inherently much different than smartphones, but there are some things that just make more sense to do on a tablet.
Standalone smart watches won't get anywhere, but I think there's a market for "second screen" smartphone accessories from the phone manufacturer. Just a screen with a basic processor that talks Bluetooth LE to your phone. It may be a niche, but I suspect these will destroy the current high-end GPS watch category.
The only reason I'd wear a watch is to have something to look at impatiently. Smartwatches are about to ruin this.
When you look at your smartphone impatiently, you could be looking at anything -- because it can do almost anything. Watches have until now been about one thing: timekeeping. And looking at your watch is (was?) a recognizable social cue.
I don't see it happening, outside of tech circles that love tech toys for the sake of tech toys.
The wristwatch market is a luxury market, one that abhors mass production. They want mechanical over quartz. They want handcrafted, custom, exclusive watches from far off lands. It's part jewelry and part status symbol. A mass produced Google wrist computer from China is none of these things.
There are generally three types of people that wear wristwatches in 2013: kids, dorks, and people with money. And I'm not so sure about kids today.
Google may be a bunch of smart people doing smart things. But they are profoundly out of touch with consumers and what it takes to connect, on an emotional level, products with consumers. Google Glass went as far as alienating tech people. People that were on Google's side were stepping back and saying "you know, Google might be losing their mind a little."
Ugh, I'm an iPhone junkie, but talking to it in front of others is something I can never see myself doing. Siri is a powerful tool (on the occasion that it takes less than 45 seconds to respond), but using it like hopping on a Segway. There's something so obnoxious about it, I can't bring myself to do it unless no one is around.
Google Now sounds like something that would indeed work a lot better on a smartwatch than it works now in a semi-hidden screen on your phone. Adding it as a lockscreen widget sort of helps, but you still have to dig up your phone and activate the screen to see the next bus departure or the status of your flight.
Together with notifications it could easily be a big enough reason for getting a smartwatch, sort of Google Glass on your wrist.
I would love a smartwatch that acted as a 2nd display for my phone and controlled things like music and workout apps such as Strava. Then I could get updates on my HR, time, speed, music, location, who's calling me, text messages, etc. without having to dig my phone out. When running I use a waist belt with a water resistant pouch because anything else results in my phone getting drenched in sweat and becoming unusable.
...am I alone or am I crazy? I am just not all that enthusiastic about a smart watch or glasses. Until it puts me behind in information processing I just don't care much.
Google purchased WIMM [0], a wearable computing device running a modified version of the Android operating system [1]. Even though the WIMM website is shutdown you can still access their app store [2] to get an idea of what is possible.
ps. I hope we see an embedded Linux SoC, meaning that you do not need to tether this with your phone, the watch is stand alone, and will likely replace the phone down the road. Most other smart watches require that you tether with your phone, which acts as the brain, so it makes programming difficult, and battery life suffers, since you have radios talking.
is technically not a watch ( it does display the hour though) , but I saw its power and I use the features daily. And looks totally geeky on my hand.