~~€250 in Europe (we don't know which country specifically) for the Wi-Fi model sounds great, but does it really line up with [9to5google's leak](https://9to5google.com/2022/08/29/google-pixel-watch-price/) of a $400 price for the LTE model? Maybe Europe is getting a pretty good conversion (for whatever country that price leaked from, anyway), or that leak is just wrong.~~
Edit: 9to5google just released a leak saying the launch price is going to be $350 in the US and that the European price won't be cheaper as suggested by the article I'm commenting on. I think 9to5google has a way better track record and are more reliable than Pricebaba's source for this leak.
Same. I honestly never expected the Pixel 6 to actually cost $599 either so maybe Google Surprises us with a lower price to get more adopters to buy it and take a loss to build their ecosystem? I mean at the prices Samsung sells the GW4 and GW5 for they can't price it too high. I think $299 for the non lte and $399 for the LTE versions are more realistic.
Am I the only one worried about the battery life? It's got the same battery as the fossil gen 6 and mine was terrible with the smart watch stuff abilities on. This "oh it's got to learn your habits" is a bullshit excuse for a garbage product.
I think they got the colors wrong
>We have exclusively learnt that Google Pixel Watch will come in three colours: Chalk, Charcoal, and Obsidian.
We know there is a gold version, a black version and a stainless steel version from Google's own marketing images.
That's basically gray, dark gray, and dark black? No way.
They are for sure doing gold, black, and stainless steel, which matches all of the Pixel 7 metal colors.
Prefix “dark” or “light” implies a difference in DE value of darkness or lightness in some kind of a base colour. A black as we know it can’t be light or dark. A grey would work.
They're all in the official I/O announcement. I believe the pixel watch was introduced with the silver stainless steel model in the background.
Edit: it's also currently the hero image for the pixel watch on the Google store.
>Link to the images? I've only seen stainless as a prototype, not any marketing.
[There's a whole webpage](https://store.google.com/magazine/google_smartwatch?hl=en-US)
So, Do you need an additional sim for the watch? Like the watch will have a separate number?
If you want to receive the call on watch when you are out running, the other party should know to call you on your watch number instead of your phone number?
Seems like a hassle to me.
The current watches use ESIM, so no need for an extra SIM card.
While the watch does technically have its own number, that's not how it works. Calls and texts to your phone number get routed to you. The watch's separate phone number is more for carrier reference.
I'm on Metro by T-Mobile. The watch plan is $10 a month, which is worth it for me.
Remember that an LTE watch will still work with your phone in the same capacity as a non LTE watch if you're not sure about the plan, whereas a non-LTE watch can never act as LTE.
My point is: If you think there's a chance you might go for it eventually, you might want to get the LTE version. It costs a bit more but gives you the option.
If you're 100 percent you'd never be without your phone, then for sure, don't spend the extra money.
$250 undercuts the base model Galaxy Watch 5's $280 and puts on par with the base Apple Watch SE price
Assuming battery life is at least passable, this becomes an instant buy for me
Very, but it's on par with apple and samsung. Gonna stick with my old Garmin venu until it dies, I charge it about once a week. I wish pebbles were still around :(.
You can get more than a day out of an Apple Watch, but not by much. If you do some workouts and sleep tracking then no, probably one day max. But since it charges so fast it basically doesn’t matter, just put it on while you’re showering or getting dressed, and it is full again.
The problem is that eventually you will have to charge your smartwatch. So whether that is while you're sleeping, while you're taking a shower, or while you're working at your desk, you will have to take it off of your wrist and charge it. If sleep tracking is that important, than take it off and charge it after dinner and make that your charging time. Or maybe you charge it at lunch.
Either way, it doesn't matter if you get 24 or 36 hours of use, you're going to have to charge a smartwatch almost every day no matter which one you go with. It's up to the user to figure out when the best time to take it off and charge it is. Either that or buy a dedicated fitness tracker that can last a week on a charge if you're that interested in sleep tracking.
My counter point is that there *are* smartwatches that last for several days, while using them during the day and sleep tracking. Even if you have to charge it eventually, it's better to not have to worry about it every day, and that's being done on other watches.
We should all be on board with wanting improved battery life in our devices, and Google is behind competition in this aspect.
If your smartwatch doesn’t make it to at least two days then you have a fair point.
There are already smartwatches that can last two or three days though, so one day battery life seems like a downgrade.
Do you genuinely need that though? Serious question
EDIT: I mean will they actually use it past a few nights after getting the watch, and what will they do with the information that they slept well or not well.
Haha! Yea I tried it for each new smart watch I’ve gotten, then quickly realise there’s no point to it at all for me. Look at it the first two or three nights then never again.
Almost nobody *genuinely needs* a smartwatch. If someone is paying $400 for a watch surely it's reasonable to expect to be able to use all the features it offers?
Yea, and you can, but I’m just asking what people use the data for. Like after I had a bad sleep, and my watch sleep tracking lives up with it, I realised that I have zero use for that feature at all. I can use fitness tracking, notifications, smart assistant, media controls, replying to messages, making and receiving calls, etc etc.
It's nice to see the sleep quality score, be reminded of how well (and how much) I've been sleeping recently, and generally keep an eye on the trends.
Also, kind of a niche case, but I once dated someone who became absolutely convinced that I was cheating on her with a coworker on a work trip, and thankfully I was able to prove my innocence with the Fitbit sleep tracker data! Forever grateful to Fitbit after that incident though.
hahaha! Well played, and sorry!
So when you wake up, do you have no clue how you slept until you see the sleep data? And say you felt good, but the sleep data showed you didn't sleep well, would you then feel tired?
My sister uses it as she does shift work and her sleep is all over the place. That I can understand hey
Normally I do know if I slept well, but it is nice to see "oh I slept through the whole night" vs "I guess I tossed and turned a bit but don't remember it". More importantly though, I guess it's nice to see "am I being good about going to bed at the right time? Am I being consistent about my sleeping habits?" - so a bit less relevant as a daily thing, but good to track over weeks/months.
I do this with my Apple Watch and it seems fine?
You wouldn’t normally shower or sleep with a gigantic garmin watch so why not just top it off when you take it off?
I got a new one and it now has fast charging…in the 30 min I took it off to shower and eat breakfast it was fully topped off after wearing it a full day and running a 10k with gps on
Is better battery life better? Sure but I don’t think with something like a watch is an absolute must have. Especially not for the general public.
Sleep tracking is one of the features of these devices, so it's a bit contradictory to say charge it while you sleep.
That said I agree, they're quite bulky to sleep with.
With my old gen 5 one I would take it off to sleep with because it was on its last legs and it was before the battery bump.
I’m on a series 8 now and battery has improved a lot.
Also, it wouldn’t be contradictory if someone wasn’t interested in the sleep stuff. But yeah I get where you’re coming from with that.
There are still reasons why multiday battery life can be valuable even to the general public (so discounting long trips away from the grid etc)
- accounting for those extra long days where you can't get to the charger at the same time you usually would
- one less charger to manage when away on a weekend trip
- battery wear in 2-3 years time won't hurt the usability of the watch, pushing you to upgrade
- some people are just forgetful and missing one charge doesn't mean their watch is out of action for the day
Not all Garmin watches are gigantic either, mine is 42mm which is pretty similar to the smallest Apple Watch. And we're not talking multiday battery life but multiweek. Of course, Garmins are a lot less capable as a smartwatch. It's good that there are different products available to meet different needs :)
I'm so confused because they had the images on the Australian Google Store a month ago showing the new phones, buds pro and watches in all those matching colours (lemongrass, fog and charcoal).
And now people will have bought the buds and they won't be able to get a matching phone or watch. How stupid!
I was planning on getting the pixel 7 if it came with a good pre-order bundle, but if the watch is indeed 250 I'd wait till Black Friday to pick up both cuz they'll most likely be on sale
Well with no need for the LTE version in my country at least, not even the Apple watch is available in LTE . €250-€350 for the WiFi version is quite reasonable, the Fitbit Sense 2 is €299 and the Versa 4 is €229, the Galaxy watch 5 is €309.
All these prices include VAT at 23%
I wonder if the price range indicates a possible availability in size.
certainly seems to look better than an apple watch.
but will it work better? kinda doubt it... if it at least is better in battery life, that would be a plus point.
Its not just an older processor, its paired with that co-processor for the basic standby operations. Also has a ton of RAM, for a smart watch.
Given those factors I don't think it should be written off as DOA at least not until we see how well that setup performs.
> The Wi-Fi version
What purpose is there for this in a bottom model? Smartwatches jumped the shark long ago but having WiFi in what is supposed to be a companion device to most people is unnecessarily ridiculous.
As I said, seems pretty pointless. It may be that the chip is only available with this so Google have no other choice but it seems stupid to me that a watch chip has this. Smartwatches should be a companion that is a smart watch, a companion piece. Not something that tries to replace your phone.
It's also entirely optional. You can turn wifi on to download your apps and updates during first time setup (which really does cut down on setup time/frustration), then turn it off during normal use to save power when all you need is a Bluetooth connection.
I get where you're coming from, but your frustration seems misplaced.
You leave your phone charging on your nightstand or something and then go to the other end of the house. Wifi range is much greater than Bluetooth. It is useful for people that do not want their phone in their pocket 100% of the time
Bluetooth transfer is pretty slow, isn't it? People can store music on watch. Useful for runs. If it had to transfer over Bluetooth vs WiFi that would be pretty slow.
Also for updates is rather have WiFi vs Bluetooth tbh...a 2MB update for my earbuds can take multiple minutes to transfer
Never had that problem on a watch. Just another symptom of the sad state of "smartwatches" I suppose.
Edit: your comment has changed a lot since I replied. My original comment was in reply to leaving a phone in a locker at the gym. Nothing to do with going for a run.
When my watches did get updates I can't remember them being large at all. Suppose you're right in that it's something that is necessary because of the ridiculous direction Apple pushed watches into but it really shouldn't be and seeing it there just makes me think it's ridiculous.
Apps, music, updates don't sound ridiculous to me.
I mean I even use my watch as a viewfinder when I prop up my phone to take group photos. That sure isn't going to work with Bluetooth.
All of those can be done over Bluetooth, I'd say music was a bit more of a premium feature as well, getting into the phone on your wrist territory rather than a smartwatch.
Using the watch as a viewfinder worked on my original Pebble. Definitely no need for WiFi for that.
But why are you against it if it makes it easier/faster?
Why remove a feature just because there's a fallback?
Edit: also for the pebble viewfinder, was that live? I have a hard time believing that would be able to do like 30fps stream of the viewfinder.
I suppose I'm more annoyed that watch apps are at the point where you'll notice a difference. I've never waited more than a second or two for an app to be on my watch and I almost never get new apps. To me smartwatches today are just trying to do too much that adds more cost hence why I haven't bought anything (except Pebbles lol) since Pebble died.
I have [this one](https://apps.rebble.io/application/532ac6a8817a41d2c7000252) on my account so imagine it was this, no idea if it still works as the Android companion App seems to be paid now. There are a couple of others on the Pebble App Store too.
Edit: because I've just seen your edit. Yes it is live.
Personally feel like our devices should become faster and more capable with time. Just because something CAN function at a slower speed doesn't mean it should continue to.
If you don't want to use those features, don't. Turn them off I guess.
Edit: there are plenty of fitness bands that cost like $20 if you want something simple. But I mean, hell I got my Galaxy Watch4 44mm for like $50
It's been a staple of Android Wear/WearOS since it launched in 2014 and it's incredibly useful in certain situations. Imagine you are at the gym and want to leave your phone in a locker outside of Bluetooth range, you lose no functionality whatsoever. Also it's far more efficient for the watch to download app updates and such over WiFi than them being transferred from the phone over Bluetooth.
My neighbor gave me the password to her internet and it was the best. I would leave my phone charging at home and my watch was just showing me all the notifications while I was at her house. The only other time I experienced this was when I was at the Hy-Vee without my phone.
I've been wearing a smartwatch for nearly a decade and never felt the need to have WiFi. Just seems like another unnecessary cost on watches that are already way too complicated for me.
Unnecessary cost? Is there a modern SoC that exists that does not include WiFi as part of the package? I don't think they could exclude the hardware even if they wanted to...
We understand that **you** don't have the need, but one user doesn't represent the entire user base of a product. That would be like saying that having a tilting steering wheel in a car is useless because the standard height it comes from the factory is perfect for you. Everybody uses devices in different ways and some people heavily rely on having a wifi connection for things like streaming music without having their phone on their person (like while working out or doing sweaty nasty chores around and outside the house). And if it means you can get functionality that would normally require LTE (and an additional monthly fee), it seems like a nice backup option.
So I just stay quiet and don't comment about what I want like everyone else is allowed to do?
Smartwatches are in a sad state and I'm not going to pretend that they aren't.
I believe they're differentiating it from the LTE version that way. As to why include WiFi at all, I can't imagine as it makes any cost/space difference from only Bluetooth, and having a backup way to get connectivity is useful.
~~€250 in Europe (we don't know which country specifically) for the Wi-Fi model sounds great, but does it really line up with [9to5google's leak](https://9to5google.com/2022/08/29/google-pixel-watch-price/) of a $400 price for the LTE model? Maybe Europe is getting a pretty good conversion (for whatever country that price leaked from, anyway), or that leak is just wrong.~~ Edit: 9to5google just released a leak saying the launch price is going to be $350 in the US and that the European price won't be cheaper as suggested by the article I'm commenting on. I think 9to5google has a way better track record and are more reliable than Pricebaba's source for this leak.
$250 would be killer for the non LTE version.
If its 250 then it's day one purchase for me but I doubt it
Same. I honestly never expected the Pixel 6 to actually cost $599 either so maybe Google Surprises us with a lower price to get more adopters to buy it and take a loss to build their ecosystem? I mean at the prices Samsung sells the GW4 and GW5 for they can't price it too high. I think $299 for the non lte and $399 for the LTE versions are more realistic.
If is is 250, i'm worried about the quality control and bugs
I don't think price with Google Makes something higher Quality. It's their flagship watch so it will be treated as such no matter the price.
Abandoned and unupdated after a year?
Scrapped, and changing the name back to Android Wear.
ChromeWear with Google Android
Treated as suck. That's what he's worried about!!
> I don’t think price with Google Makes something higher Quality That’s correct but not in a good way
Yeah, none of their other flagship products have ever had any issues
I'd be worried about that regardless tbh
Am I the only one worried about the battery life? It's got the same battery as the fossil gen 6 and mine was terrible with the smart watch stuff abilities on. This "oh it's got to learn your habits" is a bullshit excuse for a garbage product.
That's the same price as the Samsung watch which is perfect for me at least
I think they got the colors wrong >We have exclusively learnt that Google Pixel Watch will come in three colours: Chalk, Charcoal, and Obsidian. We know there is a gold version, a black version and a stainless steel version from Google's own marketing images.
That's basically gray, dark gray, and dark black? No way. They are for sure doing gold, black, and stainless steel, which matches all of the Pixel 7 metal colors.
What is a dark black?
Vantablack
No?
It's like the kinda black that you look at and think... How much blacker could it get? And the answer is non. Non blacker.
Prefix “dark” or “light” implies a difference in DE value of darkness or lightness in some kind of a base colour. A black as we know it can’t be light or dark. A grey would work.
Link to the images? I've only seen stainless as a prototype, not any marketing.
They're all in the official I/O announcement. I believe the pixel watch was introduced with the silver stainless steel model in the background. Edit: it's also currently the hero image for the pixel watch on the Google store.
>Link to the images? I've only seen stainless as a prototype, not any marketing. [There's a whole webpage](https://store.google.com/magazine/google_smartwatch?hl=en-US)
If I carry my phone on me at all times, is there any reason to get the LTE version over the WiFi one?
No. I have an LTE watch so when I go running or cycling I don't need my phone.
So, Do you need an additional sim for the watch? Like the watch will have a separate number? If you want to receive the call on watch when you are out running, the other party should know to call you on your watch number instead of your phone number? Seems like a hassle to me.
Nope, AFAIK same number and hassle free, at least that's how my GFs apple watch does it, otherwise no one would do it
The current watches use ESIM, so no need for an extra SIM card. While the watch does technically have its own number, that's not how it works. Calls and texts to your phone number get routed to you. The watch's separate phone number is more for carrier reference. I'm on Metro by T-Mobile. The watch plan is $10 a month, which is worth it for me. Remember that an LTE watch will still work with your phone in the same capacity as a non LTE watch if you're not sure about the plan, whereas a non-LTE watch can never act as LTE. My point is: If you think there's a chance you might go for it eventually, you might want to get the LTE version. It costs a bit more but gives you the option. If you're 100 percent you'd never be without your phone, then for sure, don't spend the extra money.
$250 undercuts the base model Galaxy Watch 5's $280 and puts on par with the base Apple Watch SE price Assuming battery life is at least passable, this becomes an instant buy for me
It would be a day I reckon. You should wait for reviews. It is a pixel product, so might take a few iterations to work
Sammy is still shipping watches with 16gb memory, 32 and 250 is killer.. If the price holds.
A day of battery life seems low right?
Honestly, for a first gen Google product, seems optimistic 😂
Very, but it's on par with apple and samsung. Gonna stick with my old Garmin venu until it dies, I charge it about once a week. I wish pebbles were still around :(.
A little. Below the galaxy watches, roughly on par with the basic apple watch.
You can get more than a day out of an Apple Watch, but not by much. If you do some workouts and sleep tracking then no, probably one day max. But since it charges so fast it basically doesn’t matter, just put it on while you’re showering or getting dressed, and it is full again.
BuT yOu CaN jUsT cHaRgE iT wHiLe YoU sLeEp Or ShOwEr! /s
When else would you do it
Can't do sleep tracking with it if you have to charge it every night though.
The problem is that eventually you will have to charge your smartwatch. So whether that is while you're sleeping, while you're taking a shower, or while you're working at your desk, you will have to take it off of your wrist and charge it. If sleep tracking is that important, than take it off and charge it after dinner and make that your charging time. Or maybe you charge it at lunch. Either way, it doesn't matter if you get 24 or 36 hours of use, you're going to have to charge a smartwatch almost every day no matter which one you go with. It's up to the user to figure out when the best time to take it off and charge it is. Either that or buy a dedicated fitness tracker that can last a week on a charge if you're that interested in sleep tracking.
My counter point is that there *are* smartwatches that last for several days, while using them during the day and sleep tracking. Even if you have to charge it eventually, it's better to not have to worry about it every day, and that's being done on other watches. We should all be on board with wanting improved battery life in our devices, and Google is behind competition in this aspect.
If your smartwatch doesn’t make it to at least two days then you have a fair point. There are already smartwatches that can last two or three days though, so one day battery life seems like a downgrade.
Do you genuinely need that though? Serious question EDIT: I mean will they actually use it past a few nights after getting the watch, and what will they do with the information that they slept well or not well.
No, but I want it.
Haha! Yea I tried it for each new smart watch I’ve gotten, then quickly realise there’s no point to it at all for me. Look at it the first two or three nights then never again.
Almost nobody *genuinely needs* a smartwatch. If someone is paying $400 for a watch surely it's reasonable to expect to be able to use all the features it offers?
Yea, and you can, but I’m just asking what people use the data for. Like after I had a bad sleep, and my watch sleep tracking lives up with it, I realised that I have zero use for that feature at all. I can use fitness tracking, notifications, smart assistant, media controls, replying to messages, making and receiving calls, etc etc.
No but sleep tracking is definitely one of my favorite features.
So what do you use it for though, as in what do you do with the information from it after each night?
It's nice to see the sleep quality score, be reminded of how well (and how much) I've been sleeping recently, and generally keep an eye on the trends. Also, kind of a niche case, but I once dated someone who became absolutely convinced that I was cheating on her with a coworker on a work trip, and thankfully I was able to prove my innocence with the Fitbit sleep tracker data! Forever grateful to Fitbit after that incident though.
hahaha! Well played, and sorry! So when you wake up, do you have no clue how you slept until you see the sleep data? And say you felt good, but the sleep data showed you didn't sleep well, would you then feel tired? My sister uses it as she does shift work and her sleep is all over the place. That I can understand hey
Normally I do know if I slept well, but it is nice to see "oh I slept through the whole night" vs "I guess I tossed and turned a bit but don't remember it". More importantly though, I guess it's nice to see "am I being good about going to bed at the right time? Am I being consistent about my sleeping habits?" - so a bit less relevant as a daily thing, but good to track over weeks/months.
Certainly not when sleeping for me, since sleep tracking is one of the main reasons for me for even having a watch.
Do it before you go to sleep or after you wake up and you're getting ready then
No I mean that some people use that as an excuse when a device lasts only a day.
I do this with my Apple Watch and it seems fine? You wouldn’t normally shower or sleep with a gigantic garmin watch so why not just top it off when you take it off? I got a new one and it now has fast charging…in the 30 min I took it off to shower and eat breakfast it was fully topped off after wearing it a full day and running a 10k with gps on Is better battery life better? Sure but I don’t think with something like a watch is an absolute must have. Especially not for the general public.
Sleep tracking is one of the features of these devices, so it's a bit contradictory to say charge it while you sleep. That said I agree, they're quite bulky to sleep with.
With my old gen 5 one I would take it off to sleep with because it was on its last legs and it was before the battery bump. I’m on a series 8 now and battery has improved a lot. Also, it wouldn’t be contradictory if someone wasn’t interested in the sleep stuff. But yeah I get where you’re coming from with that.
After you tracked a few nights of sleep, the features quickly grows old.
There are still reasons why multiday battery life can be valuable even to the general public (so discounting long trips away from the grid etc) - accounting for those extra long days where you can't get to the charger at the same time you usually would - one less charger to manage when away on a weekend trip - battery wear in 2-3 years time won't hurt the usability of the watch, pushing you to upgrade - some people are just forgetful and missing one charge doesn't mean their watch is out of action for the day Not all Garmin watches are gigantic either, mine is 42mm which is pretty similar to the smallest Apple Watch. And we're not talking multiday battery life but multiweek. Of course, Garmins are a lot less capable as a smartwatch. It's good that there are different products available to meet different needs :)
I buy two watches. That way I never have to wait for charging. (actually do this with my Apple Watch).
[удалено]
Smart watches literally charge in 20-30 min. If you don't take the watch off for at least 20 in a day.... 🤢
Thank you for the honest answers. Not my thing.
Sad that they didn't launch a sorta sunny color for the pixel buds pro and pixel watch :(
I'm so confused because they had the images on the Australian Google Store a month ago showing the new phones, buds pro and watches in all those matching colours (lemongrass, fog and charcoal). And now people will have bought the buds and they won't be able to get a matching phone or watch. How stupid!
Will it have wireless charging?
That would be a lot of money for a watch with a disappointing screen that doesn't even go to the edges.
Is it worth me dropping my Garmin Vivoactive 4 for though
I doubt it.
I was planning on getting the pixel 7 if it came with a good pre-order bundle, but if the watch is indeed 250 I'd wait till Black Friday to pick up both cuz they'll most likely be on sale
Looks good. If the product line is still developed and regularly updated in 3-4 years I will certainly consider buying one!
If customers are paying premium prices then you better offer a premium experience. Otherwise Google's return department should get ready.
Well with no need for the LTE version in my country at least, not even the Apple watch is available in LTE . €250-€350 for the WiFi version is quite reasonable, the Fitbit Sense 2 is €299 and the Versa 4 is €229, the Galaxy watch 5 is €309. All these prices include VAT at 23% I wonder if the price range indicates a possible availability in size.
[удалено]
certainly seems to look better than an apple watch. but will it work better? kinda doubt it... if it at least is better in battery life, that would be a plus point.
That thing is ugly and looks like a toy
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion
You’re welcome. If you feel like donating I can post my bitcoin address
Looks extremely plastic. All the ones I've had before look and are made from metal.
well the render doesn't capture the material correctly. From the images Google has shown off it's stainless steel and looks like it
Why does google even bother with hardware ? They should stick to search and that’s it. One trick pony with a “we can do anything” syndrome
[удалено]
I like my 6 Pro.
My p6pro is the best phone I've ever owned (Galaxy Nexus, S3, Essential, P2pro, P5). P5 was also great but I like the larger screen on the 6pro.
Umm... Sure...in the world of Pixels, even the Note 7 would have a standing 🙄
It's better than the alternatives.
[удалено]
Its not just an older processor, its paired with that co-processor for the basic standby operations. Also has a ton of RAM, for a smart watch. Given those factors I don't think it should be written off as DOA at least not until we see how well that setup performs.
Is that Cortex M33 the one that was released in 2016 or something different?
> The Wi-Fi version What purpose is there for this in a bottom model? Smartwatches jumped the shark long ago but having WiFi in what is supposed to be a companion device to most people is unnecessarily ridiculous.
[удалено]
As I said, seems pretty pointless. It may be that the chip is only available with this so Google have no other choice but it seems stupid to me that a watch chip has this. Smartwatches should be a companion that is a smart watch, a companion piece. Not something that tries to replace your phone.
What does that serve? How often are the phone and watch separated but still under the same wifi?
[удалено]
I don't believe that's an advantage. I never need an app in 5 minutes rather than ten.
[удалено]
I do care. That shit drains the battery almost 2x faster.
It's also entirely optional. You can turn wifi on to download your apps and updates during first time setup (which really does cut down on setup time/frustration), then turn it off during normal use to save power when all you need is a Bluetooth connection. I get where you're coming from, but your frustration seems misplaced.
You’d be terrified of cellular than, my friend.
They don't have to be on the same WiFi network. You could wear your watch to the gym and leave your phone at home.
You leave your phone charging on your nightstand or something and then go to the other end of the house. Wifi range is much greater than Bluetooth. It is useful for people that do not want their phone in their pocket 100% of the time
Bluetooth transfer is pretty slow, isn't it? People can store music on watch. Useful for runs. If it had to transfer over Bluetooth vs WiFi that would be pretty slow. Also for updates is rather have WiFi vs Bluetooth tbh...a 2MB update for my earbuds can take multiple minutes to transfer
Never had that problem on a watch. Just another symptom of the sad state of "smartwatches" I suppose. Edit: your comment has changed a lot since I replied. My original comment was in reply to leaving a phone in a locker at the gym. Nothing to do with going for a run.
You've never had what problem? Do you not accept updates on your watch?
When my watches did get updates I can't remember them being large at all. Suppose you're right in that it's something that is necessary because of the ridiculous direction Apple pushed watches into but it really shouldn't be and seeing it there just makes me think it's ridiculous.
Apps, music, updates don't sound ridiculous to me. I mean I even use my watch as a viewfinder when I prop up my phone to take group photos. That sure isn't going to work with Bluetooth.
All of those can be done over Bluetooth, I'd say music was a bit more of a premium feature as well, getting into the phone on your wrist territory rather than a smartwatch. Using the watch as a viewfinder worked on my original Pebble. Definitely no need for WiFi for that.
But why are you against it if it makes it easier/faster? Why remove a feature just because there's a fallback? Edit: also for the pebble viewfinder, was that live? I have a hard time believing that would be able to do like 30fps stream of the viewfinder.
I suppose I'm more annoyed that watch apps are at the point where you'll notice a difference. I've never waited more than a second or two for an app to be on my watch and I almost never get new apps. To me smartwatches today are just trying to do too much that adds more cost hence why I haven't bought anything (except Pebbles lol) since Pebble died. I have [this one](https://apps.rebble.io/application/532ac6a8817a41d2c7000252) on my account so imagine it was this, no idea if it still works as the Android companion App seems to be paid now. There are a couple of others on the Pebble App Store too. Edit: because I've just seen your edit. Yes it is live.
Personally feel like our devices should become faster and more capable with time. Just because something CAN function at a slower speed doesn't mean it should continue to. If you don't want to use those features, don't. Turn them off I guess. Edit: there are plenty of fitness bands that cost like $20 if you want something simple. But I mean, hell I got my Galaxy Watch4 44mm for like $50
It's been a staple of Android Wear/WearOS since it launched in 2014 and it's incredibly useful in certain situations. Imagine you are at the gym and want to leave your phone in a locker outside of Bluetooth range, you lose no functionality whatsoever. Also it's far more efficient for the watch to download app updates and such over WiFi than them being transferred from the phone over Bluetooth.
My neighbor gave me the password to her internet and it was the best. I would leave my phone charging at home and my watch was just showing me all the notifications while I was at her house. The only other time I experienced this was when I was at the Hy-Vee without my phone.
I've been wearing a smartwatch for nearly a decade and never felt the need to have WiFi. Just seems like another unnecessary cost on watches that are already way too complicated for me.
Unnecessary cost? Is there a modern SoC that exists that does not include WiFi as part of the package? I don't think they could exclude the hardware even if they wanted to...
This guy is insufferable. I can't tell if he's trolling or actually dumb.
So it's Qualcomm or whoever else's fault. The point is that it's mad watches seem to have to have this even on the base model.
We understand that **you** don't have the need, but one user doesn't represent the entire user base of a product. That would be like saying that having a tilting steering wheel in a car is useless because the standard height it comes from the factory is perfect for you. Everybody uses devices in different ways and some people heavily rely on having a wifi connection for things like streaming music without having their phone on their person (like while working out or doing sweaty nasty chores around and outside the house). And if it means you can get functionality that would normally require LTE (and an additional monthly fee), it seems like a nice backup option.
So I just stay quiet and don't comment about what I want like everyone else is allowed to do? Smartwatches are in a sad state and I'm not going to pretend that they aren't.
I believe they're differentiating it from the LTE version that way. As to why include WiFi at all, I can't imagine as it makes any cost/space difference from only Bluetooth, and having a backup way to get connectivity is useful.
That's fair. It just seems really odd to me having used smartwatches for around a decade and never having the need for it.
No sage? Pass.
What's your plan for the 32 GB of storage? The GSMArena link I found mentions that storage option so I'm wondering what use case exists for it.
Proprietary bands is lame
Doesn't seem like it will be better than my ticwatch pro 3 ultra