Samsung unveils Galaxy Gear smartwatch accessory
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
And, I'm thinking, do we really need to take a step backwards again with the camera? Smartphones are really just now catching up in photo quality where cameras were years ago (relatively speaking). Do we really need to go back to 1.9 megapixels, just to say we have a camera strapped to our wrists?
Across the board, it just seems like an unnecessary, underpowered smartphone duplicate, when smartphones are already comfortable for most.
The fitness application is the biggest I see for the watch, and of course, better dedicated watches already exist for that.
Pass.
I disagree. Smartphones aren't even close to catching up in photo quality to where cameras were years ago. Cheapo point and shoot (film!) cameras from the 90s can run circles around the image quality being produced by modern smartphones.
Smartphone pictures are grainy, frequently out of focus, noisy as shit, and either too dark or burning with the brightness of Krypton's sun. They're terrible. The crappy Panasonic film point and shoot my family had in the early 90s made better pictures than this without any fancy manual controls or knobs.
But it doesn't seem like it matters. People don't really care about how good their photos look, but rather that the photo exists and is being shared. Smartphones didn't win the camera game because they were better cameras (in fact, they are almost always atrocious, terrible cameras), they won because they were handy and way easier for spontaneous, off the cuff shots.
I'm not a fan of this watch myself, but IMO the camera is fine.
Side note: "going back" to 1.9 megapixels might just mean better pictures. The megapixel race in smartphone cameras has gotten pretty ridiculous. You are just getting more pixels full of noise, discoloration, and horrendous image quality. The bottleneck in image quality isn't resolution, it's sensor tech and lens quality - neither of which has made it into smartphone advertisements for a long, long time.
Yeah, I was being generous. Phones have made great strides though and the better ones have gotten to a much more acceptable quality. I don't expect SLR quality, but I'm not ready to move backwards either.
I agree that the megapixel wars are ridiculous and that ultimate quality clearly boils down to much more than that single metric. OTOH, I disagree that the 1.9 move will produce better pics, though I don't disagree that it's possible. It's just that you'll still have the same cheap sensor and lens tech, only now paired with lower resolution.
My bet is that it's a solid step backwards.
The ridiculous part is the price-point. People who spend $300 on a watch, want something that looks nice. They don't want to spend $300 to strap a smart-phone to their wrist, when they already have one in their pockets.
The usefulness of tablets seemed obvious to me and many others before they became popular. I don't see an obvious use-case for smart-watches, unless they are extremely affordable. $300 is more than twice what I would pay for a fully-featured watch, and that's if there is a killer feature that justifies their existence.
However, Bluetooth and a monochrome LCD would get the job done just fine.
Though it's worth noting, with August and Lockitron keyless entry systems being shipped this year, I wonder if the same can't also be accomplished with the existing BLE implementation by Pebble/others