It looks similar to a watch I've seen all over the news. Can't remember the name of it though. (Also IP68 isn't really waterproof. I take it back, I thought it was IP67 whoops)
OK, I'll bite. First: this watch was introduced before the Apple Watch. I doubt either Sony or Apple knowingly copied the other. Second: it's tricky to define "waterproof". IP68 specifies continuous immersion beyond 1 meter. If that's not enough for you, well... Keep looking. :)
This is Sony's fourth attempt at a smart wristwatch, going back to 2010 with the LiveView. I have the first Sony SmartWatch (second in the whole line, released after the LiveView) and it is crap compared to watches that came after like the Pebble, which I also own and use currently.
The SmartWatch 2 was a huge improvement over the previous model, but it didn't impress me enough at the time to buy it so soon after the last one; I ended up getting the Pebble instead. This one though, looks like what I'm really looking for in a smart wristwatch. I'd happily trade my Pebble for one, and probably will once they start selling it in the US.
As for the waterproof rating, IP68 would be "no ingress of dust" (the "6" in the rating) and "the equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water (immersion beyond 1m)" (the "8" in the rating). That sounds pretty much waterproof to me. Now, if you mean it's not a diver's watch, well of course it isn't, and never claimed to be. A diver will wear a diver's watch, not a device that connects to a phone she wouldn't dive with anyway.
IP68 is actually more waterproof than IP67 - higher digits mean better levels of protection in IP codes. IP68 is basically the highest rating possible under this standard.
Mean while everyone with a Moto 360 is getting asked "Is that the Apple Watch?!?!" myself included. You should see the deflated look on their face when you tell them that the Apple watch is square.
I don't know about that. I don't just drop the Motorola mic and walk away. They ask about it and almost everyone has said something about why the Apple watch won't be round. These people weren't techies so I can see why they thought it might be made by Apple. But they all said they wanted to get the Apple watch and seemed to be let down when the one on my wrist wasn't the Apple watch.
I know exactly the look you mean. It's typical modern "techie" fanaticism. I had people asking me if my first Android phone five years ago was an iPhone, and they exhibited a look that I also would only describe as "let down" or "disappointed".
I use the word "techie" in quotes because, while many of those people would have described themselves as techies, I found they were really just consumers of technology. They had no functional knowledge of how anything worked or how to make anything themselves. To them, the only smartphone (or smartwatch) in existence was the Apple product, because to them the entire point was to brag about acquisition.
Even within the demographic of programmers, you'll find "techies". They ask you what programming language or framework you used to build your project, then get disappointed when you didn't magically read their minds 6 months in the past and chose their darling flavor. I've got no use for such people.
They were so good with showmanship that many people missed the fact that it's a complex thing you need to swipe, tap and spin a wheel on to interact with a multitude of tiny apps on in a very un-Apple way.
When they introduced the digital crown as an interaction mechanism I thought it was genius. When they showed the home screen I realised they had lost their minds.
This torrent of chunky rectangular smart watches are all about as sexy as the Casio calculator watches from way back when. I still think those calculator watches are a cool piece of old tech, but I don't know anyone who would wear one un-ironically.
I've owned a wide range of smart watches (sony smartwatch 1, sony smartwatch 2, galaxy gear 1), and people actually compliment me/notice the watches quite frequently -- considering what they do/contain (essentially being very small computers), they're exceptionally small
How do you like the Smartwatch 2? I have enough points on my Sony card to pick one up, but I'm still on the fence as to whether or not I would actually use it.
Hey I actually love it! It's a fantastic watch, has good functionality -- lacking tons of apps, but then again, it's a watch.
I used/liked:
1. Show to people at parties/in social situations, people are very curious about it
2. Look at texts/email (and possibly fb/twitter, but I didn't want that stuff going to my wrist) without taking my phone out. Especially when driving with both hands on the wheel, reading short texts (one word/short sentence) was pretty easy (and not too terribly dangerous, I thought).
3. Configurable face is amazing -- you can design your own watch face, add widgets like weather, battery, bluetooth connection, etc
4. If you develop, it's great to at least have one thing on the platform, in case you decide to develop for it.
One of the negatives is the closed platform. Like the galaxy gear, Sony doesn't really make it easy for you to modify the hardware/low-level software, and there's the whole silly "get our app to communicate" business, which is just trying to lock people into a walled garden.
But all in all, the smartwatch 2 is fantastic, and it's got a great (non-prohibitive) price tag. I got mine for like $100-130 on Newegg Flash
Yeah, it's a huge improvement over SW1. I'd also suggest that you go after a Galaxy Gear 1 (if those sony-bucks are convertible) -- it's become very cheap now, and it's not that the technology has gotten any worse, it's still also an amazing device (with more functionality than the SW2).
The question, then, is whether they're complimenting you because it's new and they've never seen it before or because they actually think it's a good-looking watch. People complimented PT Cruiser owners when those things first came out. :P
Well I imagine it's a little of both -- also, there's a sort of retro-chic that still goes with large/squarish devices... Style is so subjective -- look at the new porsche blackberry phone, that's a PT Cruiser if I've ever seen one
> This torrent of chunky rectangular smart watches
Genuine question: Did you include "rectangular" because you would prefer a circular smartwatch? I genuinely don't understand why people would want a round smartwatch. I don't see how a round screen would provide a good UX (this is why they don't make round monitors, or round smartphones).
Even if watches are traditionally round, I wouldn't want to have to build a UI around the constraints of a circular screen.
Whether you implied this, I have seen multiple people voice their preference for a circular smartwatch, so just trying to understand the logic vs. the constraints it would impose.
It's not so much that I want a round smartwatch, but that I know I don't want a rectangular one, because to me they're an aesthetically unpleasing sacrifice of form for function.
I'm sure a watch that was 6 inches wide and went halfway up my forearm like a gauntlet would be awesome to type on and read email, but I wouldn't wear it because it'd be super ugly.
I have no doubt that you're right that UX is easier to do on a rectangular screen than a circular one.
The problem is that a watch is an object of fashion first and foremost. That's why you can find people willing to pay $10k for a Rolex Submariner or, say, an Omega Speedmaster "Dark Side of the Moon". They're the ultimate status symbols. That's what watches have become -- status symbols.
Apple clearly understands that with their Edition edition (though they didn't think through that name very well) and the general high-end finish of all the watches (even the Sport edition has a stainless steel frame around the watchface), but I think it was a mistake for them to choose a rectangular screen. I personally had hoped Apple would be the first company not just to make a circular smartwatch, but to also design a custom UI for a circular screen as well (as opposed to just slapping on Android Wear like the Moto 360 does).
Anecdata is anecdotal. What I'm trying to highlight is the, frankly ridiculous notion that high end watches aren't square. The Monaco is a desirable time piece.
And therefore so are other square watches! It means that the form factor isn't unprecedented. The notion that a watch face can only be aesthetically pleasing or fashionable, which is what is being argued, is absurd. There are plenty of precedents from watchmakers such as Patek Phillippe and Omega.
Sorry, I didn't see the GPS. So if there are apps compatible with this, then it can distinguish itself from other smart-watches. Would be nice to go running without a smartphone and still tracking the speed.
A Garmin Forerunner might be up your alley, and their GPS watches are down to around a hundred dollars these days. No other "smart" functionality, though. I leave the Pebble and Samsung Gear at home when I run.
I hear this a lot, what exactly is the problem with running with a smart phone? I run with my 5S all the time and I barely notice it is there. Is this just a problem with larger screened phones? Is it really such an inconvenience that it justifies a +$200 watch to solve the problem?
Yes, I wear my Nexus 4 on my arm and it's not the nicest thing. I previously had a 4" phone which was much better. Also, the smartwatch is nice to see your speed and the time, so you would wear it anyway (I can't really check the phone's screen on my arm, but I have audio feedback). If you can get rid of the smartphone, which is here just for the music and GPS, that's perfect. An update to android wear is going to bring bluetooth offline music, perfect for my bluetooth headset I use. Why take your smartphone with you when you don't need it?
I think this is due to Sony marketing it as an "active watch", similar to the fit bands that also look like rubber toys. Personally I like it, at least the black one. It actually looks nicer than the Pebble, not that the Pebble is a standard of style.
Apple's promised hearbeat sensor is a good step towards making a more advanced fitness/health device, at least. Even though I'd rather have that as a thin Fitbit-style band rather than a chunky touchscreen watch.
Yea, I think the Fitbit style is the design they should shoot for.
They could use the wrist band to hide precious IC space, along with the antenna for the GPS.
Note that a number of available smartwatches already have heartbeat sensors (Gear 2, Moto 360, LG G Watch R, etc). You didn't exclude this possibility, but just wanted to clarify for any who wondered.
It should be noted that the Samsung Gear Live (one of the first two Android Wear devices from last June), as well as the Moto 360 both have a heart sensor, powered by an LED on the back of the device, just as Apple's will.
You website and products looks like they were happier in the Adobe Flash era of the Internet. The navigation is a disaster; small horizontal bars with lethargic animations make me dread trying to get anywhere on the site. The font selection and logo look like you told a design intern to make something look expensive.
Size wise, your website is 1,600 pixels wide. 1,600! This means you'll see horizontal scrollbars on a 15" Macbook Pro. Since it's not even remotely responsive, you've eliminated anyone coming to your site on a mobile device and even the iPad retina in portrait mode. If you can't be bothered to make it responsive (not really challenging considering the limited amount of content) at least make a mobile optimized site.
There is no reason the text should scroll on a page like that. It's a drab wall of text with no formatting, links, or really any kind of structure. Why have you made a boring wall of text -harder- to read?
Why is there a carousel navigation at the bottom of the page? Circles like this are traditionally used in carousels (which themselves are universally hated), and not for entire pages. I have no idea where those buttons lead and I'm pretty sure lots of people miss them (you could test that with Google Analytics). The confusion here is compounded, since they -do- work as a carousel on the homepage.
Regarding the watchfaces: am I correct in seeing you're selling these for $100 per engine?! Do you expect to compete on any meaningful level with the iWatch and Android Wear? Or is this one of those 'premium' experiences that certain people are happy to pay for?
So, all in all my feedback is this looks like a site trying to be premium without a clear understanding of what the word means.
Thanks for the feedback. I coudn't agree more with the remarks you made about the website. It defenately needs some improvements.
> Regarding the watchfaces: am I correct in seeing you're selling these for $100 per engine?!
Yes. These watch faces (we call them virtual engines) are created by professional watch designers.
> Do you expect to compete on any meaningful level with the iWatch and Android Wear? Or is this one of those 'premium' experiences that certain people are happy to pay for?
No, because we are not a smart watch, simply an high-end digital watch. The product is premium by its materials and craftmanship. (For example: The Slyde is water resistant up to 30m).
> So, all in all my feedback is this looks like a site trying to be premium without a clear understanding of what the word means.
Point taken, there is defenately some things we have to improve with the communication.
Glad to give feedback on the site, but I have to call bullshit on the 'virtual engines'.
"virtual engines" ... that's fantastic! If you simply called them 'watchfaces' you might have to give them away like your competitors.
Charging $100 for a digital watchface is so amazingly brazen it could only be done if you had nothing but contempt for your customers intelligence. Or perhaps you're targeting the fools with more money than sense (such a wonderful market if you can get in it).
Serious question though: how will you compete with the iWatch and MotoX? They have vastly more features and a hardware design at the very least on the same level. Combined with app ecosystems and a solid app distribution network, it's going to be a short amount of time before iWatch 'virtual engines' come out at a fraction of your price.
Sony wearable are powered by Android Wear. Does anyone know if Android Wear supports BLE out of the box? I suppose it does but am not sure about light devices such as Sony SmartBand. There doesn't seem to be any mentions on the page.
I could be mistaken here but it seems BLE is not only "supported" but may indeed be a requirement of all Android Wear (aka Android API level 20) devices. AFAIK every Android Wear watch has noted an Android 4.3 requirement for the paired handset, which is also the API level (18) where BLE was introduced to Android.
Ahh, they missed a trick. Where Apple is going to kill them isn't even on functionality, but customizability. That's especially ironic considering it's iOS vs Android.
Yeah, i think you mean for instance when it says "colors available" and there are TWO. 1. Black (okay), and 2. crazy weird yellow-green. I have no stake in this game, but srsly, you'd think they would understand that more colors/styles => more customers. And that's the easy part. Getting the electronics right was the hard part... gosh.
I prefer the form factor of the SmartBand, but that only has 3 days of batter life (with eink display!). I'd rather get the Garmin vivosmart which as 7 days of battery life.
73 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 157 ms ] threadThe SmartWatch 2 was a huge improvement over the previous model, but it didn't impress me enough at the time to buy it so soon after the last one; I ended up getting the Pebble instead. This one though, looks like what I'm really looking for in a smart wristwatch. I'd happily trade my Pebble for one, and probably will once they start selling it in the US.
As for the waterproof rating, IP68 would be "no ingress of dust" (the "6" in the rating) and "the equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water (immersion beyond 1m)" (the "8" in the rating). That sounds pretty much waterproof to me. Now, if you mean it's not a diver's watch, well of course it isn't, and never claimed to be. A diver will wear a diver's watch, not a device that connects to a phone she wouldn't dive with anyway.
I had the first sony smart watch and it was amazing for its time. Then I got the pebble and loved it. Now I'm onto the Moto 360 and not looking back.
BTW, this was announced back on September 3 or sooner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbDDWubWKaQ
I use the word "techie" in quotes because, while many of those people would have described themselves as techies, I found they were really just consumers of technology. They had no functional knowledge of how anything worked or how to make anything themselves. To them, the only smartphone (or smartwatch) in existence was the Apple product, because to them the entire point was to brag about acquisition.
Even within the demographic of programmers, you'll find "techies". They ask you what programming language or framework you used to build your project, then get disappointed when you didn't magically read their minds 6 months in the past and chose their darling flavor. I've got no use for such people.
Right now it looks interesting but it's hard to say much more than that.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000GAWSAY
I used/liked:
1. Show to people at parties/in social situations, people are very curious about it
2. Look at texts/email (and possibly fb/twitter, but I didn't want that stuff going to my wrist) without taking my phone out. Especially when driving with both hands on the wheel, reading short texts (one word/short sentence) was pretty easy (and not too terribly dangerous, I thought).
3. Configurable face is amazing -- you can design your own watch face, add widgets like weather, battery, bluetooth connection, etc
4. If you develop, it's great to at least have one thing on the platform, in case you decide to develop for it.
One of the negatives is the closed platform. Like the galaxy gear, Sony doesn't really make it easy for you to modify the hardware/low-level software, and there's the whole silly "get our app to communicate" business, which is just trying to lock people into a walled garden.
But all in all, the smartwatch 2 is fantastic, and it's got a great (non-prohibitive) price tag. I got mine for like $100-130 on Newegg Flash
And yeah, PT Cruisers are terrible.
Genuine question: Did you include "rectangular" because you would prefer a circular smartwatch? I genuinely don't understand why people would want a round smartwatch. I don't see how a round screen would provide a good UX (this is why they don't make round monitors, or round smartphones).
Even if watches are traditionally round, I wouldn't want to have to build a UI around the constraints of a circular screen.
Whether you implied this, I have seen multiple people voice their preference for a circular smartwatch, so just trying to understand the logic vs. the constraints it would impose.
I'm sure a watch that was 6 inches wide and went halfway up my forearm like a gauntlet would be awesome to type on and read email, but I wouldn't wear it because it'd be super ugly.
The problem is that a watch is an object of fashion first and foremost. That's why you can find people willing to pay $10k for a Rolex Submariner or, say, an Omega Speedmaster "Dark Side of the Moon". They're the ultimate status symbols. That's what watches have become -- status symbols.
Apple clearly understands that with their Edition edition (though they didn't think through that name very well) and the general high-end finish of all the watches (even the Sport edition has a stainless steel frame around the watchface), but I think it was a mistake for them to choose a rectangular screen. I personally had hoped Apple would be the first company not just to make a circular smartwatch, but to also design a custom UI for a circular screen as well (as opposed to just slapping on Android Wear like the Moto 360 does).
They are not even remotely as popular as circular watches. I don't personally know a single watch aficionado who wears a square watch.
I think this is due to Sony marketing it as an "active watch", similar to the fit bands that also look like rubber toys. Personally I like it, at least the black one. It actually looks nicer than the Pebble, not that the Pebble is a standard of style.
Can anyone please come up with something more interesting than counting the number of steps I take during the day?
Feedback appreciated.
You website and products looks like they were happier in the Adobe Flash era of the Internet. The navigation is a disaster; small horizontal bars with lethargic animations make me dread trying to get anywhere on the site. The font selection and logo look like you told a design intern to make something look expensive.
Size wise, your website is 1,600 pixels wide. 1,600! This means you'll see horizontal scrollbars on a 15" Macbook Pro. Since it's not even remotely responsive, you've eliminated anyone coming to your site on a mobile device and even the iPad retina in portrait mode. If you can't be bothered to make it responsive (not really challenging considering the limited amount of content) at least make a mobile optimized site.
Then there are pages like this: https://www.slyde.ch/en/concept/engine
There is no reason the text should scroll on a page like that. It's a drab wall of text with no formatting, links, or really any kind of structure. Why have you made a boring wall of text -harder- to read?
Why is there a carousel navigation at the bottom of the page? Circles like this are traditionally used in carousels (which themselves are universally hated), and not for entire pages. I have no idea where those buttons lead and I'm pretty sure lots of people miss them (you could test that with Google Analytics). The confusion here is compounded, since they -do- work as a carousel on the homepage.
Regarding the watchfaces: am I correct in seeing you're selling these for $100 per engine?! Do you expect to compete on any meaningful level with the iWatch and Android Wear? Or is this one of those 'premium' experiences that certain people are happy to pay for?
So, all in all my feedback is this looks like a site trying to be premium without a clear understanding of what the word means.
> Regarding the watchfaces: am I correct in seeing you're selling these for $100 per engine?!
Yes. These watch faces (we call them virtual engines) are created by professional watch designers.
> Do you expect to compete on any meaningful level with the iWatch and Android Wear? Or is this one of those 'premium' experiences that certain people are happy to pay for?
No, because we are not a smart watch, simply an high-end digital watch. The product is premium by its materials and craftmanship. (For example: The Slyde is water resistant up to 30m).
> So, all in all my feedback is this looks like a site trying to be premium without a clear understanding of what the word means.
Point taken, there is defenately some things we have to improve with the communication.
Thanks for you feedback!
"virtual engines" ... that's fantastic! If you simply called them 'watchfaces' you might have to give them away like your competitors.
Charging $100 for a digital watchface is so amazingly brazen it could only be done if you had nothing but contempt for your customers intelligence. Or perhaps you're targeting the fools with more money than sense (such a wonderful market if you can get in it).
Serious question though: how will you compete with the iWatch and MotoX? They have vastly more features and a hardware design at the very least on the same level. Combined with app ecosystems and a solid app distribution network, it's going to be a short amount of time before iWatch 'virtual engines' come out at a fraction of your price.
I prefer the form factor of the SmartBand, but that only has 3 days of batter life (with eink display!). I'd rather get the Garmin vivosmart which as 7 days of battery life.