Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Slashdot Asks: Do You Want a Smart Watch?

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the does-it-shoot-deadly-darts? dept.

Hardware 381

Watches that do more than tell the time have been around for a long time. (And in fiction, James Bond, Dick Tracey, and Michael Knight all had notably high-tech watches.) The new smart watches from Samsung and LG, without a phone connected via Bluetooth as backhaul, can still serve to show the time and to serve as alarms (and Samsung's can measure your pulse, too), but all the magic features (like searching by voice via the watch) do require a connection. They can't play MP3s or take pictures on their own, and they don't have built-in GPS. Even so, compared to the polarizing Google Glass, the new breed of smart watches are wearables that probably are an easier sell, even if this far the trend has been to replace watches with smart phones. (Android Wear has gotten a lot of attention, but Microsoft has their own upcoming, and Apple almost certainly does, too.) Are you interested in a smart watch, and if so, what uses do you want it for? If they have no appeal to you now, are there functions that would make you change your mind on that front?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Betteridge answers (5, Insightful)

danomatika (1977210) | about 7 months ago | (#47439421)


Re:Betteridge answers (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 7 months ago | (#47439491)

all these android wear devices are not impressive. i'm holding out for an watch.

No (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439697)

No, I do not want a watch that is meant to sell my private information to third party, ass-holes like Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft etc. etc. etc.

Re:No (4, Insightful)

Intron (870560) | about 7 months ago | (#47439743)

No, I do not want a watch that is meant to sell my private information to third party, ass-holes like Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft etc. etc. etc.

I already have a phone to do that.

Betteridge answers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439763)



Re:Betteridge answers (1)

BananaSlug (450565) | about 7 months ago | (#47439783)

Shouldn't that be 'double plus, double plus un-good'?

Re:Betteridge answers (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#47439833)


No (1)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 7 months ago | (#47439423)

A smart watch is a smart phone with less functionality that you have to wear around your wrist. I don't understand the appeal at all. Everything it does a smart phone does better, only a smart phone is not strapped to one of your body parts.

Re:No (2)

csnydermvpsoft (596111) | about 7 months ago | (#47439519)

The smart watches I've seen aren't meant to be used independently - they're used in conjunction with a smartphone. I'm not sure I want one, but I can see the appeal of - you can read a text, see who's calling, and perform simple functions without pulling out your phone.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439529)

a smart phone is not strapped to one of your body parts.

Speak for yourself.

Re:No (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439683)

a smart phone is not strapped to one of your body parts.

Speak for yourself.

Sure, just give me a call. The ring tone is set to vibrate

Re:No (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 7 months ago | (#47439731)

Everyone I've seen use one uses it to remotely answer the phone, while they try to find where they last laid the phone. It's probably a better match for the tablet-sized phones people don't keep on them.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439427)

I don't.

Not really (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 7 months ago | (#47439437)

I can't think of any use for a smart watch, to be quite frank. Can't dictate things to it without everyone around me hearing me, plus all the speech recognition - things I've tried handle Finnish poorly anyways. Too small a display to do anything useful with. Too small battery, would lead to endless frustration. Clock? I could just use a regular watch for that. I don't doubt that those can be totally awesome things for some people, but I just can't see myself belonging in that group.

Re:Not really (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 7 months ago | (#47439721)

Same situation here. I can see how they *might* be useful, but none of the currently available models have a killer feature or, better yet, a set of killer features, that make me want to get one. Not even slightly. On the flipside of that, the one feature that they almost all seem to have that I most definitely don't want is that they are tied to a specific phone, or at least to a specific vendor. Maybe Apple can come up with somethings for them to do that everyone else can rip off for the whichever generation of Android-phone linked watches finally become interoperable...

Still, at least they don't have to look as ugly as sin (another common failing), a particulary important consideration for those of us that don't like/suit chunky watches; give me slim and elegant over the most of the current watch designs any day! I'd get something like this [techcrunch.com] in a heartbeat if only the vendor in question could make it do something my current chronograph couldn't that I found useful - if it were about half as thick.

smartwatch (4, Interesting)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | about 7 months ago | (#47439439)

I'd like a very *simple* smart watch...

* Simple caller-ID and memo display, programmable shortcut buttons, nothing else.

* Very long charge life comparatively (2 weeks would be okay) and/or very easy charging (put it on a charging pad).

Re:smartwatch (3, Informative)

Mr_Silver (213637) | about 7 months ago | (#47439525)

I'd like a very *simple* smart watch...

* Simple caller-ID and memo display, programmable shortcut buttons, nothing else.

* Very long charge life comparatively (2 weeks would be okay) and/or very easy charging (put it on a charging pad).

Closest I can think to those requirements are the Casio G-Shock Bluetooth models [g-shock.com] . Two year battery life and notifications for most of the common things you'd want. A comparison chart can be found here [g-shock.com] .

Unfortunately they don't really go so well with a suit - although I don't suspect that will be a problem for the majority of Slashdot readers.

Re:smartwatch (4, Funny)

Intron (870560) | about 7 months ago | (#47439757)

I'd like a very *simple* smart watch...

* Simple caller-ID and memo display, programmable shortcut buttons, nothing else.

* Very long charge life comparatively (2 weeks would be okay) and/or very easy charging (put it on a charging pad).

I would like mine to also tell time.

smartwatch (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439807)

Check out Pebble. I got it to last 2 weeks without bluetooth. If you turn bluetooth on, it's gonna last a solid week. And it's waterproof (I used it in a pool and daily in my shower).

Re:smartwatch (4, Informative)

Langalf (557561) | about 7 months ago | (#47439845)

I agree. I have a Pebble, and with Bluetooth on and about 15-20 notifications a day, I get a solid week on a two hour charge. I use watchfaces that only update once a minute, and I could not be more happy with this device. With the vibration and the notifications on screen, I can deal with 90% of what I receive without ever pulling out my smartphone. The phone is always on mute, and I rarely miss anything important.

Re:smartwatch (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 months ago | (#47439909)

Google Now, or something like it. Forget about messing around with shortcut buttons and apps, I just want something that tells me what I need to know when I look at it. For example, as I get up to leave work I want to vibrate and notify me of traffic on my usual route. When I get to the airport I want my flight info displayed with the gate number.

Throw in some basic health monitoring (steps, maybe heart rate), a round face (square just looks stupid for some reason) and wireless charging. Most importantly it needs to be comfortable, and I'd expect it to be durable and waterproof so I can wash it off every now and then. Anti-bacterial coating would be nice too.

The Moto 360 is looking good on this front, except perhaps for the strap. It remains to be seen how well it works though.

A smartwatch as a Bitcoin wallet (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439441)

If a smartwatch served as a secure Bitcoin wallet, I'd buy one!

I already have one (4, Funny)

simplypeachy (706253) | about 7 months ago | (#47439445)

I'm on my fourth watch and this one even has a date window. I cannot comprehend how a watch can get even smarter!

Full disclosure: I am the son of a jeweller / watchsmith.

Re: I already have one (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439585)

Get a grand complications watch, Vacheron Constantin or perhaps Patek Philippe :)

Re:I already have one (3, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 months ago | (#47439607)

I'm on my fourth watch and this one even has a date window. I cannot comprehend how a watch can get even smarter!

I agree. 10 years ago, I thought about all the money I had spent on cheap watches that I later destroyed or that simply stopped working. The next time I needed a watch, I purchased a $500 Seiko, which has served me well as a watch for the last ten years, it's really a nice time piece.

For me, there just isn't enough screen real estate on a watch no matter how much computing power it has. Sure, I often look at my phone for the time, but my Seiko is a mighty fine and quite accurate piece of "man jewelry". I really like it.

I also have a Rolex Oyster, but I only wear that to impress douche bags.

Re:I already have one (1)

simplypeachy (706253) | about 7 months ago | (#47439693)

Just checked my £30 Timex and it's lost two seconds in about a year. That's what I get for buying cheap. It was worth a bit more retail value - Timex sold me this at wholesale price by way of apology when they couldn't repair my previous Timex. It was 15 years old and they didn't have the parts any more. That cost a whole £40 in 1996.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439449)

Is that enough info, or do you need all the reasons?

Sure don't! (4, Insightful)

ddt (14627) | about 7 months ago | (#47439453)

Don't want it for the same reason I got rid of my cell phone. I was servicing it more than it was serving me, and it's redundant to my portable computer anyway.

Re:Sure don't! (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 7 months ago | (#47439507)

if you were servicing your smartphone a lot then you had a crappy smart phone. i suggest an apple phone.

Re:Sure don't! (4, Insightful)

ddt (14627) | about 7 months ago | (#47439593)

By servicing, I don't mean it was broken. I mean charging, paying a monthly premium for bandwidth, enduring dropped calls and poor reception, checking it like some kind of animal expecting a treat or an addict hoping to find a leftover hit in his pocket, getting phantom vibrations on my leg when it wasn't ringing, missing vibrations when it was, and then finally, noticing that I was getting angry when people called me out of the blue without scheduling an appointment. That wasn't my first relationship to phones. Before the internet, when the phone rang, I'd run to answer it and be excited to hear who it might be. It was communication from the outside world! They changed. I fell out of love.

Re:Sure don't! (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 7 months ago | (#47439611)

So the guy at the 'Genius Bar' can service it instead? No thanks.

Re:Sure don't! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439775)

Apple phone = smaller screen, slower CPU + GPU, less RAM, requires iTunes for some functionality, a single app store with restrictions I don't like, no alternate OS images, lower quality front camera, no app sideloading, more expensive, etc (compared to my phone).

I've got my reasons for staying away from Apple devices. Since Google seems to be headed in a direction I don't like with Android too, it looks like I'll have to find another alternative soon.

Smart watches seem pointless (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439455)

All smart watches seem like to me is a cash grab by the big tech companies.
What can a smart watch do that my smart phone can't!

Hmmm.....well..it fits around my wrist? Does that count for anything?:)

No No No (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 7 months ago | (#47439459)

A thousand times No.

Wrong question (1)

jamesl (106902) | about 7 months ago | (#47439465)

A "smart watch" is as much a watch as a "smart phone" is a phone. And many people have quit wearing a watch because ... they get the time from their smart phone.

The question should be, can a smart watch replace your smart phone?

Re: Wrong question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439521)

Look at all the stuff a smart cellphone can replace. MP3 player, pocket audio recorder, point-n-click camera and cheapie video cam, GPS, even a phone. Who knows if a computer in watch form can replace a smartphone. It will beinteresting to see.

Re: Wrong question (3, Interesting)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 7 months ago | (#47439569)

The computer in the watch can do that, no biggie.
The key is user interface and that seems unlikely.

Secure Lab kills it for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439469)

Yet another thing to leave in the locker/desk before heading into the lab. No camera devices allowed..even without a camera, its nigh useless without my phone which it must be paired with and which has a camera.

Cool idea bro, call me when big brother takes over and has remote kill switches and 'silent zones' where you can remotely disable the ability to take pictures due to a mandatory built in kill signal. Then my employer can implement one and I can wear it in the lab and just have camera/video/sensors disabled. Which again would make it less useful but at least its still strapped on my body.

Also, 1-5 days of battery life? If I can't get 2 months out of my watch, its too much effort to deal with for too little return. Watches are the tablets in the 90s. Almost there. Give the battery and holographic display tech another decade, then sell me on it again.

Re:Secure Lab kills it for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439685)

Same for me, exempt no cell devices of any type allowed in the lab, camera or no. It doesn't matter really, since there is no signal in there.

I have one (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439475)

I got the Omate Truesmart. I never use it except when skiing, when I use a sports tracking app with it. The battery life is poor and my phone does everything I need.

For the last fucking time (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 7 months ago | (#47439477)

NO. How many more stories are going to ask this question?

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439487)

Why would I wear an iWatch like every hipster at the Farmers' Market when I can wear a Submariner like Thor Heyerdahl, James Bond and Fidel Castro?

Congrats! (1)

Anna Merikin (529843) | about 7 months ago | (#47439535)

You get it. Any modern quartz-controlled watch that costs more than $10 is a status symbol and nothing more. Some watches may rise to a level of art, but still, a symbol of alphaness.

When James Bond wears a smart watch, then popularity will follow.

Re:Congrats! (2)

Known Nutter (988758) | about 7 months ago | (#47439575)

Any modern quartz-controlled watch that costs more than $10 is a status symbol and nothing more.

I don't know about that. My Citizen WR-100 is a very modest watch. My wife bought it for me about 8 years ago. $250. It's my daily driver... the nightstand watch. It's very special to me for many intangible reasons, but it certainly isn't a status symbol.

I get what you're saying, but there's a middle ground somewhere, too.

Re:Congrats! (1)

stoploss (2842505) | about 7 months ago | (#47439881)

My wife bought me my dream watch: a Citizen solar powered watch with auto synch with the atomic clock service. I have wanted atomic time synch in a watch since 1996, but only recently found this one.

It's nice that it has a sapphire face, because I want this thing to last me for 20 years and my old watch's face got rather scratched.

My perspective is that if the primary reason one is excited about a possession is its features and capabilities, then it's not a status symbol. It may be a luxury, of course. If this watch is still working/synching in 20 years, I will probably be as happy with it as the day I got it. Happier, probably, because I like durable and reliable possessions.

You know, I have never discussed my watch with anyone in person. Perhaps others who have the same watch are treating it as a status symbol. Maybe it is to them.

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439499)

But, not until Apple makes one that's actually useful and stylish.

I love my smart watch. (1)

james_shoemaker (12459) | about 7 months ago | (#47439503)

I had somewhat smart watches before (timex datalink), but I love my metawatch.

Smart Guantlet (2)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 7 months ago | (#47439509)

With a flexible OLED display that wraps around my entire forearm. Not sure where to put the battery, but I would not be surprised if that turns out to be a future tech.

Yes I want and have ordered a smart watch (1)

Mister Null (3688597) | about 7 months ago | (#47439527)

I want it if only to not miss calls (lots of these with AT&T.

Doesn't have to be that smart. (4, Interesting)

hansson (886936) | about 7 months ago | (#47439533)

I signed up for a Pebble on day 2 of the Kickstarted campaign. When I finally got it, I spend many hours loading watchfaces, apps and exploring all the features. Nothing really klicked for me. Kept it on my arm anyway for a week - just for show and tell - and now I'm totally hooked.
The killer app is the alerts. Not having to pull out the phone 500 times every day is what keeps this ugly thing on my wrist.
Forget all the music control, runkeeper, navigation and whatever they try. Camera - that's just stupid. That's all done better on the phone, but the *alerts* are golden! Several friends went through the same process. Initial disappointment turned to must-have. I never use the buttons - just a quick glance when the thing buzz. Android or iOS in the watch is nonsense. Pebble got the idea right, but could scale down on the features and focus on the looks.
So get me a "moderately clever" watch...

Re:Doesn't have to be that smart. (1)

Jhon (241832) | about 7 months ago | (#47439815)

I completely agree. I have a pebble and just being able to glance at it while on the road to see who is calling or texting/emailing is a huge convenience. Or in a theater where it makes virtually no noise and I can see it without lifting my arm up and the "glow" is next to non-existent but readable.

I STOPED wearing a watch over a decade ago because I had a phone which told me the time. Oh how things have come full circle.

Forget the apps -- it's the alerts that make it useful.

Better fitness watch (4, Informative)

Bodhammer (559311) | about 7 months ago | (#47439537)

I would like a better fitness watch that tracked pulse rate without a chest band, respiration rate, blood pressure, blood sugar, and blood o2 levels, as well a movements such as swimming and riding, not just waking and running. I would like to to use the GPS in my phone and not have one built in.

Re:Better fitness watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439587)

Also environmental sensor. The quality of air I'm breathing for health reasons, although admittedly the data is useful in large scale aggregate as well. UV sensor, definitely, crucial for metabolism monitoring.
and most importantly, open publishing using IoT protocols, like sensorML and/or BLE, not proprietary crap that has no interop.

5 years down the line? if you can get an image sensor that would be awesome, food recognition. count my calories as I'm eating them.

Minimalistic smartwatch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439541)

I want a smartwatch, that looks and feels exactly like my current watch (Casio WVA-470 with Titanium bracelet), but has notification features over bluetooth etc.
Batterylife must be over 2 months with single charge and use solar and/or wrist movement for charging. Also the time needs to be synced automatically, through RF-waves atomclock or with the help of the mobilephone.

I think Martian is getting close to what I want.

Re:Minimalistic smartwatch (1)

Random Destruction (866027) | about 7 months ago | (#47439615)

That's where I am too. I love the idea of smart watches, but I don't want anything clunky, or with poor battery life.

Simple notifications or apps (compass/GPS, weather, sunset/sunrise, heart rate monitor) that are useful when out and about, but not too clumsy on its tiny interface.

And ideally some sort of interoperability with various phones.

I don't have very high hopes of this type of device existing any day soon. So for now I'll stick with my Citizen WR200 atomic.

When they actually make one (1)

ichabod801 (3423899) | about 7 months ago | (#47439545)

When they make an actual smart watch, as opposed to a phone-accessory-worn-on-the-wrist, I may buy one. To me, a smart watch would be a computerized watch that does time things far better than a classic watch. I haven't seen one of those yet.

Everything they've promised... (1)

Known Nutter (988758) | about 7 months ago | (#47439549)

Only if it's as high tech as they've promised. [macrumors.com]

Device convergence (5, Insightful)

dbrueck (1872018) | about 7 months ago | (#47439551)

No thanks. The watch is just another device on the long list of separate things that got consolidated into my phone (mp3 player, camera, calendar, ebook reader, flashlight, GPS, alarm clock, etc.). As with all those other things, the version on my phone is so far into the "good enough" range that having a separate device for the same functionality just doesn't offer much appeal.

Too many of the smart watches seem to try to move functionality back off the phone, which seems pretty pointless (until at such time as it could completely replace everything on my phone, which case I might be interested. You know, some sort of holographic magic screen that replaces the need for a large physical screen, or maybe interfaces with some futuristic contact lenses that project a HUD that only I can see).

Anyway, that seems to be the core problem - these watches just don't do anything worthwhile compared to what I'll already be carrying with me. I don't want a watch as a status symbol, I don't need a watch to just tell time, and I don't need/want a watch to do a bunch of stuff my phone already does.

An exception would be for highly niche purposes. I have a kid with type I diabetes. If he could have a watch that could monitor is blood sugar levels and dispense insulin, I'd buy it.

Re:Device convergence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439715)

Very good point. I actually think somehow the same. No need to carry extra baggage. I actually sometimes take off my normal watch (and I have it cause was a gift) cause I just can use the phone and under the watch I have sweat and dirt accumulated. Actually hate to wear jewels for the same reason. I also feel I cannot ventilate well my sweat and have it evaporated. I even hate tight clothes and clothes that prevent ventilation. But on the other side I think many people could consolidate many things in the watch just as in the phone so guess there is some market for them but not the media hype we are seeing lately.

No (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439555)


1) Yet Another Device To Keep Track Of
2) Yet Another Device To Charge
3) Yet Another Device To Perform Monthly Patches On/Worry About Being Infected By Malware
4) It's simply not that hard to take my phone out of my pocket.
5) I've gotten very used to not wearing a watch, or cleaning it every month from all the skin/sweat stains they accumulate
6) The user interface is destined to be either disappointingly useless, or useful but too-big-to-be-practical.

I have exactly 0 interest in smart watches.

IF I were to want one... (1)

haggus71 (1051238) | about 7 months ago | (#47439561)

There would need to be three things that none of these smart watches have.

Durability. At the least, Timex or Casio G-Shock level. I want something I don't need to worry about getting wet, getting knocked, or getting dropped.

Duration. They can never get it to a watch's timeframe, but at the least, get it up past a week of use without a recharge.

Media use/bluetooth. Make it so it can take a micro-SD card, and play media to bluetooth headphones. Also, if you want that online experience, make it so you can act as a relay on your person between the phone and your bluetooth.

With tech today, I wouldn't want one. I think the time you can miniaturize it to give features such as call reception, streaming music, etc, will be the time it will be functional enough to sell. Otherwise, am I too lazy or distracted in my life to not hear/feel the phone, or to pull it out of my pocket? I have a phone for all that stuff, and a watch for time, both of which do that well. I don't need something that tries to help do both half-assed

No, no, (2, Informative)

reboot246 (623534) | about 7 months ago | (#47439563)

and hell no.

Is that clear enough?

CmdrTaco would say... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439571)

No FM Radio. Less storage than a Nomad. Lame.


Re:CmdrTaco would say... (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 months ago | (#47439915)

No FM Radio. Less storage than a Nomad. Lame.


This actually makes me nervous. Given the unbroken track record of Slashdot mistaking the market share for every major advance in technology since the iPod, I'm forced to believe that smart watches are going to be a hit.

And I'm not sure I want to live in that world.

Some look OK (3, Interesting)

chuckugly (2030942) | about 7 months ago | (#47439577)

Some of the smart watches out there look OK; for instance the Martian Watches Passport SmartWatch [amazon.com] looks like a reasonable timepiece, has a reported 1 week battery life, and does some simple Dick Tracy stuff while still managing to be a wristwatch.

If it had a separate power supply or some way to use the last bit of the main supply strictly as a watch with a 6 month reserve for essential functions I'd probably buy that.

But most of them are little phone gadgets for your wrist that will require charging daily, or nearly daily. Useless.

this is what i think (1)

musixman (1713146) | about 7 months ago | (#47439583)

I thought about this for myself only,

This is what I would buy,
1) I need to tell at a glance time without hitting any buttons. Eg, a watch....
2) It would need it to be curved to fit the dimensions of my wirst
3) It should decide if I should buy or sell a stock.
That is all.

Do I want a smart watch? (2)

jargonburn (1950578) | about 7 months ago | (#47439589)

No, not really.
I'm inundated with tech. It's what I do for a living (not uncommon, on this site). If anything, I'd prefer easier ways to disconnect rather than add an additional stream of information.
Until they're ready to override my optic nerve or provide (nearly) seamless Augmented Reality, I am perfectly happy to live without. I still enjoy seeing the progression, but I just think I'm still happier not using most such things.

Slashdot Asks v. Ask Slashdot (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 7 months ago | (#47439597)

Changing the name from Ask Slashdot to Slashdot Asks seems a rather telling display of your character. You see yourselves as Slashdot, and the commenters as ... what, customers? the audience?

The next Beta Sucks is coming, it is only a matter of time. Until you realize that we, the commenters, are the site -- that we create the value you sell to the readers -- you will never be out from under that hanging sword.

Do me a favor; go to YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, Ars, and half a dozen other sites, and read some comment streams. Do you see how vacuous they are? Do you see how much chaff you must wade through to find one or two poignant insights?

The moderation and metamoderation systems here have generated a unique community (well, not entirely unique, with SoylentNews [soylentnews.org] cruising along in the wings). It is the community of commenters that you have the privilege of monetizing. But only so long as you don't piss it away with your narcissism.

Re:Slashdot Asks v. Ask Slashdot (1)

NF6X (725054) | about 7 months ago | (#47439713)

Do me a favor; go to YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, Ars, and half a dozen other sites, and read some comment streams. Do you see how vacuous they are? Do you see how much chaff you must wade through to find one or two poignant insights?

I don't think the owners of Slashdot care. I think they only care about eyeballs per advertisement.

YES! just not the ones they making. (3, Interesting)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 7 months ago | (#47439603)

I would love a smart watch but it would be more like computer on your forearm. the problem is the requirements are has, a highres display that flexes in three dimensions, sticks to your arm using the van der waals force (like gecko feet), uses heat from your body for power, weighs less than a 10 grams and is 1mm thick. It's not impossible, my idea is just an expression of several "almost there" technologies.

that is the smartphone i really want.

I want this watch! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439605)


Not a smart watch, but a fitness watch I would (1)

Ries (765608) | about 7 months ago | (#47439613)

Wouldn't buy a smart watch, I would buy a fitness/health/stats watch, if it was more than a standard heart rate monitor. Don't need my watch to show time/sms/email/other-stuff, I can see that on my phone. But a non-stop health/fitness/stats censor... :-)

No (1)

melting_clock (659274) | about 7 months ago | (#47439631)

Well, not really. My current digital watch is several years old but has great features: strong (titanium) band, solar battery charging so NEVER needs to be connected to the charger and the battery lasts for many years before needing replacement, includes a range of sensors (temperature, barometer, compass) that are sometimes useful and the usual stopwatch, timer, alarm, etc. Most importantly, it keeps time accurately.

It would be very annoying to have a connect a watch to a charger every day. Having a smart phone in my pocket already doesn't leave a lot of "smart" tasks for another device.

When smart watches can claim a similar battery life, durability and unobtrusive use, only then will I buy a smart watch...

No, I don't want a watch at all (1)

naughtynaughty (1154069) | about 7 months ago | (#47439637)

Much less an expensive one that requires recharging frequently and doesn't do anything my phone doesn't already do and in fact requires my phone to do much of anything at all.

I had a smartwatch before it was mainstream (3, Insightful)

MindPrison (864299) | about 7 months ago | (#47439643)

My first smartwatch was a Seiko Data 2000, it was released in 1983 - and had a 4-line dot-matrix LCD display that lasted surprisingly long. It had an external keyboard with induction technology to transfer the data from the keyboard to the watch.

Since then, there has been numerous PIM watches released over the years, some with icons, some databanks etc. And 5 years ago - I bought a Chinese Watch-Phone with mp4 playback/recording, spy-camera, GSM-phone, Bluetooth (stereo) headset and a color touch screen with a mini stylus hidden in the wristband itself.

I used it the first 2 weeks to show off to my friends, I had to make numerous phone calls with it because no one at that time would believe that it actually worked as a phone, but yes - it most certainly did...and this was WAY before the well-known brands came with their limited "smart" watches, this thing could already do more than their stuff today.

I think I wrote...I used it for 2 weeks, gave it away to a watch-collector as a christmas present, because honestly...I'd never use it.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439647)

No. Ain't nobody got time for that.

I want a faux smart watch (1)

Dracos (107777) | about 7 months ago | (#47439649)

Smart watches are misnomer, really. They can't do much on their own because of the form factor. Typing? No way. In reality, smart watches are dumber than dumb terminals.

What I do want is a nice looking, not too big, watch with a full color LCD matrix screen, maybe touch enabled, where I am able to customize the interface and make my own "themes". This, and being able to sync the time via NTP, would be the only reason for it to have WiFi or BlueTooth (unless a micro SD card could be squeezed in, then it could sync via WWVB or equivalent).

For context, I've owned several Casio DataBank watches, all digital/analog hybrids. My favorite of them was the one where the LCD displayed a fill month calendar. The Wave Ceptor was a neat gimmick, but watches don't generally need that much precision on a daily basis.

The Pebble comes close, except for the lack of color screen. It's been a while since I looked at what's out there. So far it seems the manufacturers are using smart watches as an excuse to tether users to their walled gardens (I'm looking at you Samsung).

Re:I want a faux smart watch (1)

Jhon (241832) | about 7 months ago | (#47439835)

Do you REALLY need a color screen?

I get over 1 week on a single charge with my pebble. I think THAT makes it a huge difference in any other "smartish" watch out there. Add color would mean more power. Add sound, or more "two-way" functions and again, you require more power.

"Smart earrings" or "smart necklaces" too? (1)

mpoulton (689851) | about 7 months ago | (#47439669)

No, I do not want a "smart watch" any more than I want any other "smart" jewelry. Purely functional timepieces are obsolete. If all you want is to know the time, your phone already solves that problem for you - hence the decrease in percentage of people wearing watches. A modern wristwatch is a piece of jewelry where its functionality (and the means of achieving it) are part of the beauty. "Smart watches" have enhanced functionality, but universally at the expense of beauty. The aesthetics are terrible, thus defeating the primary purpose of a watch these days.

Re:"Smart earrings" or "smart necklaces" too? (1)

Jhon (241832) | about 7 months ago | (#47439857)

"If all you want is to know the time, your phone already solves that problem for you "

I haven't owned/used a watch in over a decade for that very reason -- until recently. I got a pebble. And my opinion has completely changed. I LIKE not needing to take my phone out every a few dozen times a day. I like seeing who I calling an sending them to VM or not without taking out my phone.

As far beauty goes, the pebble isn't the fugliest thing around. It actually looks half way decent. And the newer versions are even better.

Not even a little (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 7 months ago | (#47439675)

Sorry no, seems completely pointless and total waste of money.

Hell no. (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 7 months ago | (#47439687)

Full-fledged computers can barely even keep track of time on their own without constantly pinging a network time server, there's no way in hell I would want my watch--of all things--to be absolute shit for timekeeping. Also, all I need my watch to do is show me the time and date, nothing else, and light up on the somewhat-frequent occasions that I need to see it in the dark. Not to mention, a cell phone can barely last a day running a modern "mobile" operating system... does anyone really think these "smart" watches will last a week without recharging? No thanks, I'll keep my current watch, which doesn't need a change of batteries for a couple *years*, and no need to plug into the wall every two days to charge. It's bad enough having to recharge my phone daily, hell will freeze over before I accept having to do the same thing with a watch.

No. (1)

NF6X (725054) | about 7 months ago | (#47439705)

I have zero interest in having a smart watch. I haven't worn a wrist watch regularly for at least a decade, and I don't miss them. If I ever change my mind about wearing a watch, it'll probably be something older than I am. Something may come along that makes me no longer want or need to carry a smartphone in my pocket, but at this time I don't foresee it being in wrist watch form factor.

Medical Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439727)

I have cancer. Extensive surgery (20 hour operation and four followup operations), and ongoing chemotherapy are keeping me alive.

One issue I live with is occasionally fainting, and waking up on the floor in need of assistance to get anywhere. The medical staff in my case recommended I get a wearable medical alert. I looked into this, but the $20/week monitoring fee wasn't attractive, and calling out an ambulance for my frequent but minor problems seemed excessive.

So I bought a Samsung Gear watch. It's waterproof, so I can wear it in the shower. Now, when I find myself in need of assistance, I can call family/neighbours/friends/workmates, or even call for an ambulance if necessary. I have used it 3 times so far for this, and it's working well for me.

In all other respects I wouldn't recommend the "smart" watch. Everything else it can do, that I would use, is done better and more conveniently by the cellphone it connects through.

Depends. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439733)

Will it increase the conspicuousness of my consumption?

I'll keep my mechanical / automatic instead (1)

grahamsaa (1287732) | about 7 months ago | (#47439737)

I'd rather keep my mechanical / automatic watch. It's durable, looks nice, keeps excellent time, never needs charging and will still be nice 20 years from now. Show me a smart watch that can do that and I might be interested.

Only way I'd wear a smart watch (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 7 months ago | (#47439739)

Is if it came with a red LED display and looked cheaply made. The people who wear watches anymore seem to be,"Hey look at how much money I have." so looking like you're going in the opposite direction would be art as fashion... if it didn't cost a lot of money. So maybe I'm thinking it is time to go invest in a 1$ LED watch off ebay to be a smart ass. Oh even better would be to leave it blinking 12:00 all day.

Nope (2, Interesting)

AdamStarks (2634757) | about 7 months ago | (#47439753)

I barely need my smart phone, why the hell would I want to spend hundreds of dollars on a second, feature-pared screen that has a terrible battery life?

No and here's why... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439759)

I'm am older and need to wear reading glasses. I have trouble using my smart phone even with the letters quite large. It becomes bothersome to have to put on your glasses just to quickly glance at it. In addition, I stopped wearing watches about 5 years ago when I realized that my cell phone, cordless phone, pc, TV, VCR, DVD, stove, microwave, car, stereo, etc.. all have clocks running. When I did wear watches, I selected ones that were very thin as thick watches would catch on everything.

I don't wear a watch at all. (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 7 months ago | (#47439785)

I have never found a need for a wearable watch. So, no.

Nope don't wear watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439793)

I have not worn a watch in years. I do not see a need even if they are smarter. My smartphone does all I need.

Needs functionality (3)

RR (64484) | about 7 months ago | (#47439801)

As with the existing technological hassles in my life, I would use a smart watch only if it did something significantly new.

In the old days (1980s), my laptop would go weeks without a battery charge. Now, my laptop barely makes it through a day, if I'm not actually using it much during that day. But my new laptop is vastly more capable, with high-DPI IPS display and 802.11ac WiFi and the ability to run a C++ compiler many times in a single hour.

In the less old days, my phone would go a bit over a week without a battery charge. Now, my phone usually makes it through a day, but not if I'm using its GPS or its processor extensively; and it's much bigger. But my new phone has a camera that doesn't entirely suck and a lot of apps, some of them useful, and visual voicemail. Still, I wouldn't have bought it if it didn't have another compelling feature: Really cheap unlimited plans. [republicwireless.com]

That's 2 devices that I have to plug in every day to keep using. A smart watch would be a third. So far, I haven't heard of any compelling features. The current crop has what? The ability to show notifications. Which my phone already does when I leave it on the table next to my mouse, and which I'm already consciously choosing to ignore when I want to maintain focus. And Samsung's watch has its trademark heart rate sensor, which works only if you're not exercising.

I can imagine some uses for a smart watch, in concept, if it could do stuff independently of the phone. A camera that you don't even have to dig out of your pocket (or purse, if you have a Samsung). A communications device that you can carry without pockets. A security/control device (if it doesn't come from Google, Apple, or Microsoft, and runs free software). The concept is interesting. It just needs good execution.

No. (1)

Golden_Rider (137548) | about 7 months ago | (#47439805)

The smart watches, as they are being offered right now, do not interest me at all. They look ridiculous, the battery life is horrible and they are not good at being WATCHES.

A "smart watch" which would interest me would have some or all of these features:

- looks like a normal, elegant watch - i.e. leather or steel wristband (NO plastic!), round, not too heavy, elegant design (either like a standard chronograph or some "bauhaus"-y look). Basically nothing which screams "I am a geek".
- long battery life. By that, I mean AT LEAST a week, better a month or more.
- maybe health monitoring features (pulse, steps, ...)
- shows time without having to be "activated" (i.e. no having to touch the screen or hit a button to show something)
- best "display" option for battery life would be standard hour/minute dials plus a tiny little LCD screen for text (a line or two)
- possibility to link to a smartphone to show notifications (e-mail subject lines, sms), but nothing more, since tft/amoled screens plus touchscreen features plus voice recognition plus apps mean low battery life, so it's simply a no-no. Basically, I just want to have a look at the watch to see if it is worth taking out my smartphone to read the e-mail which just arrived or not. I do not want to actually read the e-mail or type a reply or make a phone call via the watch. Especially NOT make a phone call. Holding your watch up to your face and talking to it might look cool in some old James Bond movie, but in reality it is just stupid.

something which is kind of there, except for the little LCD display for notifications, is the Withings Activité:

http://www.withings.com/activi... [withings.com]

Looks like a standard, expensive watch. Has health monitoring which can send data to an app on your smartphone. Has a battery life of A YEAR with a standard CR2025 battery, despite low energy bluetooth connectivity to the smartphone.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439823)

I don't need one nor do I want one.

Sure, but... (1)

sabinelr (1061112) | about 7 months ago | (#47439827)

1. I don't want to pay for a smart watch.
2. You have to hook it up with your phone, which I don't have.
Otherwise, it sounds great, but I am too cheap to buy and use all that stuff. If someone could show me how to make more than the investment in that stuff, I would go get one today. I got enough fun building horribly ugly HDTV antennas; I don't need to spend any more time on other stuff that might not be as interesting.

Only if it comes with MS Windows (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439865)

So I can use the BSOD as a flashlight.

Not really (2)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 months ago | (#47439867)

Unless its something like they had on ARK-II back in the 70's, ( and that would not be too practical ) a smart watch will always be a gimmick, unless there is some sort of way to make the screen appear bigger than it is.

Not being a Luddite, or not 'thinking outside the box', its far to small to be really useful other than for telling time. Just from the proliferation of larger screen phones you can tell that going smaller is not the direction people want to go for usability or functionality.

Sure, you can have alarms, and scrolling banners.. but your phone can do that, and so much more, without the 'squint' limitation...

Easy (2)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 7 months ago | (#47439895)

I want to be able to call my self-aware trans-am to save me from gunfire

Not really, not yet (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 7 months ago | (#47439897)

I loved consolidating my watch, PDA, phone, and media player into a smartphone. Yo make me go the other way, a gizmo would have to provide very strong utility. Not alerts, not exercise data, not a duplicate of the remote that's already on my headset, not a teaser of stuff that I need to go to my phone to really use/act upon.

I've narrowed it down to either universal ID (for logins, PINs, locks...) or doing what my smartphone does, only hands-free. Not holding my breath...

I miss my Casio CFX-200 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47439913)

I miss my Casio CFX-2000. [google.com] Wish they still made them... I used to use the scientific calculator features an awful lot when I was still in school. Exponentials and Trig proved very useful many a time!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?