Unfortunately this is exactly what I feared smart watches would look like. It looks like a house arrest ankle monitor more than a watch. If they can get cut the thickness by a factor of 3 and the width/height by about half, I would be interested, but as it stands there is no way I'm walking around with a chunky box strapped to my wrist.
You've seen this, right? https://moto360.motorola.com/
Although not that that thin, it does look like an actual watch and not a house arrest ankle monitor, IMO.
I'm male and not particularly small, 6'2" 195lb. The moto360 is specced at 1.8" diameter (unclear if that is the screen or the entire device). Either way, the top of wrist is 2" across, so yea, it's better, but your still talking about a device that is huge in comparison to my wrist. I can't imagine how any of the current generation of devices are even thinking about the smaller end of the male population let alone the average wrist of the female population.
I agree that this generation of watches is a little too big for me to want to wear one. But there are plenty of men who wear non-electronic watches much bigger than these for the sake of fashion and status. Check out this NYTimes article which discusses a U-Boat watch that is 2.5 inches in diameter: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/fashion/mens-watches-keep-...
My thought is this. It's an early adopter device. Early cell phones were bricks, portable computers were suitcases, both seem to have caught on pretty well despite early release form factor issues. New devices push the limits of tech to hit the market then get refined. It'll happen here too.
The difference is that bulky cell phones and back-breaking Osborne portable PCs were tolerated because they offered something unique. You didn't already have a slightly different kind of phone or PC with you.
The current smartwatches are not like that. They're basically just additional screens for the phone that is already in your pocket. The convenience factor of not having to dig up the full-fledged device doesn't amount to much if the wearable is so bulky that it's an inconvenience in itself.
See to me it does. I currently have a Pebble and I was caught off guard by how much it has changed the way I use my cell. I don't carry my cell around the house anymore nor do I dig it out 100 times a day to check the latest alert. That change in use is much more substantial than I expected. I actually get frustrated with repeated alerts on my phone when I don't have the Pebble on. Now how much the extra functionality of these new touchscreen models will add I don't know but I do know I frequently wish my Pebble offered a little more interaction. I'm sure there is a sweet spot somewhere and this is early days for the form factor.
They could be useful for sport activities. For eg: I could maybe see it replacing my cycling computer if it provided a heart rate monitor + support for extra speed/cadence/power sensors via ANT+ or Bluetooth LE
Agree- in this case I'd be most interested in GPS, heart rate and no dependency on a phone (don't want to have to carry my phone on runs).
This is almost the opposite of what I want from a casual watch- for it to offload absolutely everything to my phone and essentially be a second screen and nothing more. Keep size to an absolute minimum.
Honestly, given the fashion designs I've seen for many of the "higher end" watches available from department stores, this doesn't seem that large by comparison.
But personally, I stopped wearing a watch over a decade ago because I hated the feeling of wearing one and I constantly damaged them by accident (catching them on a door, etc.).
Sundar Pichai had one on his wrist for the keynote today - It looks better than the LG watch, but it's still large enough that my first reaction to seeing it was "wow that's a huge watch".
i'm definitely waiting until next-gen before i consider buying one.
