A year ago I tried out what I call the “Samsung Geek Watch” (Galaxy Gear; see this posting). I eventually gave up on it. What (useful things) does the new Apple watch do that the Samsung watch could not do? At first glance it looks like a pretty similar array of stuff. Of course, this might not necessarily render the Apple Watch uninteresting. The iPhone operating system and the Samsung Note 3 operating system mostly perform the same functions, but the Samsung implementation is comically bad in critical areas, e.g., in searching for a contact to call the phone gives priority to contacts without associated phone numbers.
7 thoughts on “What does the Apple Watch do that the Samsung Geek watch could not do?”
Comments are closed.
Maybe a watch-sized display is good for eagle eyed young-uns, but I’m of an age where the new big iphone display is of more interest.
There have been many attempts at electronic “geek watches” and they have all failed so far. Battery life is a big issue – do you want to charge your watch every day or even more? Details on the battery life of the iWatch are not known yet. Geeky watches in general have limited appeal – watch styles (to extent that people still wear watches at all) have mostly reverted to analog types. A watch is partly a functional device but partly jewelry – one of the few pieces of jewelry that it is acceptable for mainstream males to wear, so the aesthetic or cool factor is very important. Apple has cracked the code on many consumer devices but I’m not sure this is one of them.
Apple Watch requires an iphone that automatically excludes you.
It is a Watch first. Not a geek toy.
It is fashion item.
It starts at $349 but goes up to $2000 for gold+sapphire+ceramic back.
You can replace the bands according to your mood.
UI is quite different. Arstechnica has a visual comparison to Moto 360.
Google is take multiple screens what Watch does in one.
So in conclusion, it is not for you. It is too expensive.
Plus Apple would making even more money if you start using
Pay. For every time you buy Apple is going to make money.
That is bad.
I’m guessing that the Apple Watch will likely do fewer things than for example the Galaxy Gear or the Motorola 360; but it’ll do most of those things ‘better’, i.e. more seamlessly and intuitively, less intrusively. I doubt it will be compelling even for many Apple users, certainly not in the first iteration.
I would find it compelling if it does the following:
accurately monitors my heart-rate and exercise activities with seamless integration with whatever health app I’m currently using;
provides more control over music playback than possible with the 3-button controller on my headphones;
tells the time;
remotely controls the iPhone camera;
has a battery life that lasts all day.
As an aside, I have 2 Tag Heuer watches: one has a battery that requires replacing every 2 years (€75, usually takes 7-10 days) and servicing every 4-5 years (€200); the other is “self-winding” but needs winding every morning and usually at least once more during the day and is so inaccurate that even if it is still running when I look at it I usually end up checking the time on my iPhone anyway (and is currently broken after a drop onto a tiled floor from waist height and I’m wondering if it’s worth spending around €400 to repair it.)
James – you are being ripped off. Batteries for Quartz watches only cost a couple of $. There are place that will change them while you wait for a small charge. There is no need to mail the watch off to the factory agent. Second, quartz watches (unlike mechanical) do not require regular service – they run until they stop running and then you replace the entire movement. Even the most expensive quartz watch usually takes a movement that is very inexpensive. It is a dirty little secret of the watch industry.
Second, a properly functioning “self winding” watch should not require hand winding unless you are bed-bound. Any normal level of activity should be sufficient to wind them. And they should be accurate to within a few seconds a day. Not as accurate as quartz but accurate enough for ordinary purposes. However, self-winding watches are delicate instruments – one drop onto a tiled floor is enough to damage them severely.
Because I am a clumsy oaf, I wear a Chinese automatic (another name for self-winding) that cost under $50. It keeps excellent time and never needs winding as long as I wear it (any automatic will stop after a day or two unworn). Every few years when it stops keeping good time, I replace it with another one – it’s cheaper than having it cleaned or fixed. This is the one I am wearing at the moment: http://www.ecrater.com/p/15042201/ik-colouring-round-dial-mens?gps=1&id=80959801219
The largest single expense for Swiss manufacturers such as Tag or Rolex is advertising. The watches themselves cost very little to make (and it costs the Chinese, with their low labor costs, even less to make similar products). Personally I don’t like paying for my own brainwashing.
As far as watches go, I found one that is always accurate, never needs winding or batteries, and is only $120. The Casio Men’s WVA470DJ-1ACF “Waveceptor” Solar Atomic Ana-Digi Sport Watch which is available at Amazon. There are other similar watches available.
The Casio is good but it leaves me cold. I happen to love mechanical watches. I think the are among man’s cleverest inventions. No electronics, no batteries, just a bunch of incredibly tiny gears and springs and yet the thing keeps time. The ticking heartbeat of the balance wheel almost feels alive.
Watches are essentially jewelry for men, and have fallen out of favor with young people, from what I understand. I would expect the difference lies more in the image the Apple watch presents to others, rather than the functionality, per se. It’s like asking if a Rolex keeps better time. Nope, worse than a quartz watch. Doesn’t hurt sales a bit. 🙂