Sony Ericsson Android Remote watch is what iPod nano should have been | Hacker News Reader

Sony Ericsson Android Remote watch is what iPod nano should have been

tech.fortune.cnn.com

44 pointserikstarck26 comments

Am I missing something here? This seems to be a touch screen remote for an Android phone. How is that like the iPod Nano?

It's an interesting idea for controlling music and notifications (though a 1 inch screen RSS reader... not so great).

Hard to really judge without a price but gut feel is that it's going to be more expensive than most people will pay to solve the "getting my phone out of my pocket problem".

I think the idea with the title was that the new iPod Nano should function as a remote and display for the iPhone.

It isn't touch screen. It has buttons on the sides, and a 'touch frame' which is, as far as I can tell, a bezel that acts as a 4 way rocker.

Oh. And that was the one thing they seemed to have in common.

I completely disagree. This is not what the iPod Nano should be, that's just a stupid sensational news title. Maybe the iWatch, but the iPod Nano is an iPod, NOT a watch (core product).

Exactly. The main task of iPod nano is to play music. Why should it be some remote control is beyond me. I am not sure what problems does this product solve. Take a look at your arm so you can take your phone out of the pocket and then look at it? On-arm display for the running app makes a bit of sense though.

It sucks for running. Have you ever tried to run with a phone anywhere but on your arm (with a sport band)? The nano comes with Nike+ which gives you just as much, or more, information as that Android app, is free, and does not require a brick in your pocket. The screen is too small to be useful for anything (ESPECIALLY anything i read via RSS) but music. Also, while running, holding a button to bring up music is not an option. I got a nano because it takes my phone out of the equation. That way, I don't risk hurting my phone with sweat, rain, or an accidental drop/trip. This gadget involves a cheap looking strap, an expensive&tiny screen, bluetooth(battery life?) and still needs my phone to boot. Not to mention that that strap looks insecure and holds the screen where rain and sweat will inevitably get to it. As for just walking around town, I already have a watch that has infinite battery (and is extremely durable) and I'm not about replace it with something that needs more maintenance and is more fragile on a flimsy strap. Its probably not even waterproof! (which is somewhat expected behavior for a watch, aka taking it off/putting it on when taking a shower/going surfing/etc) I would've been more impressed if sony copied the nano exactly, using oled.

If I could see who is calling and then actually answer the phone from this gadget, then I wouldn't need to be constantly digging my phone out of my pocket. I could just have the earpiece in my ear and the phone in a less accessible place, which seems like it should be a lot more convenient.

Oh yes, this is what iPod nano should have been, since everybody is carrying both your phone and the iPod nano to work out. And doom to the those kids that do not have a smartphone.

> I love this idea.

What a cool idea! It's a watch that controls the phone, since reaching the phone in your pocket is so hard! Maybe the next big idea is to have a ring-attached remote to control this watch which controls the phone in the pocket since it is so hard to reach the watch on your wrist.

And don't get me started on the "find my phone" feature. It's bluetooth and its 20 feet range.

If you are a woman and you keep your phone in your purse this might be nice (of course, you'd have to make it a fashion accessory for it to catch on if that were the case.. the Sony Ericsson Android watch by Gucci). Or if you are driving and you have the phone in a pocket or the console. (I can't easily access a phone in my pocket if I'm seated).

I hate rummaging my pockets while i'm in a meeting to figure out if that phone call is something important or someone who can leave a message (or standing up and rummaging, which is way worse). I keep more than just my phone in my pocket, wallet, keys, change, at a minimum the wallet and phone are similar enough in shape that I have to think about which is which.

I am not a particularly orderly person, but I lose my phone in my (not terribly large) apartment quite regularly. I always know the general area I left it, but it is always under something or my eyes aren't noticing it. Perhaps if you have a cavernous mansion, the 10m range would make 'find my phone' not terribly useful, but for the rest of us it doesn't seem bad.

That said, I don't have a smartphone mostly because $30/month for a data plan (in addition to the phone) seems kind of steep. But this seems cool.

Chances are if I were working out I would keep the phone nearby and wear the watch. I see a lot of people on treadmills and stuff on their smartphones via Bluetooth (the lifters less so). If you were actually running outdoors it still might be OK. (Strap the watch to your wrist and the phone to your upper arm? I can't see my upper arm as well as my wrist). Then I can tweet stuff from my wrist 'lol i'm on a treadmill', 'now im getting some water'.

Anyway, I think you may have not thought through how awesome this is.

A key point missed in the article is the SRP. It will retail for anywhere between $80 and $100. This is a lot for a pretty simple set of functionality.

http://channel.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=26635

iPod Nano 6G manufacturing cost is $43 but it retails for $149. I'm not sure how much LiveView overlaps the Nano's market. Either way, we need some competitor to put pressure on the nano's insane margin.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/09/28/materials_cost...

Although this sounds great, you have a time telling device already - a mobile phone.

It's actually more of a remote screen than a remote watch.

1) If you have smartphone than your MP3 player is probably sitting in a drawer.

2) Most bluetooth headsets already do AVRCP so this adds what?

3) Bluetooth is great until things loose sync. Then you have to pair them again. I've already got one bluetooth remote that looses connection daily. I've gone back to a $20 IR remote that works 100% of the time, everyday.

4) 2 words for you: Microsoft Sideshow.

5) I've found the built-in controllers from BMW, MB, Audi, and Ford Sync to be much better than some sticky-taped aftermarket device.

6) This is Sony, they epitomize NIH more than any other company. I still don't understand how they are allowed to keep a bluetooth SIG label on the PS3. You can't use the DS3 controller or BD remote on any other BT device. They barely support BT keyboards and headsets. Based on history I'm sure it will be proprietary.

This is cool, as in it better costs less than $30 or have a really needed function. Just showing the time and playlist isn't going to cut it.

Sony and Sony Ericsson are not the same company. Believe me, I've worked for the latter.

I don't know what the iPod nano should or shouldn't have been, but a remote control for the cellphone is a terrible idea. So you are going to have to carry around the phone, plus this gadget, and maybe a wireless headphone too? Madness.

I don't think that you _have_ to do anything. However, I could see this being extremely useful if you're a runner. I think it will come down to pricing.

It looks like the intent is for you to wear it like a watch. Hopefully they've thought about it well enough to allow it to actually function as a decent watch as well.

But I already have a watch. It's in my pocket and it also makes and receives telephone calls.

But then what do you wear on your wrist to accessorize?

The thought of going running with one of the newest gen android phones in my pocket makes me cringe. My first thoughts when I saw this thing was that if it could replace my nano+armband+wired headphones it would be fantastic.

I'm surprised there is as much interest in this as there is. There is a company often recruiting/advertising around my campus that has been trying to get a Blackberry watch (not just a remote like this) off the ground for a good while now: http://www.getinpulse.com/. Their press seems to be pretty limited in comparison.

Maybe a device like this would be better paired with a tablet or some larger device. I could see a device like this plus a tablet be suitable for work hours. I don't think it would be useful enough for casual usage, however.

Ah, I love it whenever the tech media tries to weigh in on the latest music devices. It's so deliciously bizarre and surreal. Always good for a laugh.

A taste of the next form-factor after smartphones? It's been reincarnated a few times without traction, but OLED+modern batteries might change that.

Totally agree; I think it's a great idea. I'd want it for checking text messages particularly, without having to dig up my phone. That said, being able to impulsively check everything from your wrist -- never out of sight, never out of hand -- waiting for that tiny dopamine kick could be a bit of a problem!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com