Comments Locked

18 Comments

Back to Article

  • jjj - Sunday, February 15, 2015 - link

    lol more of the same, why can't they just try to do it right instead. Ofc the goal here is to charge more on a shinier shell, not to make a better product.
  • rpg1966 - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    How dare a company try to target products to consumers with different tastes, and (gasp!) maybe make a profit which will help fund further improvements.

    It's like condemning Porsche for making an absolute motza on Cayennes, which helps keep the 911 alive and helps fund cars like the 918.
  • jameskatt - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    Looks like LG is trying to sell the watch to people who value cheapness.
  • Samus - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    trolololol
  • name99 - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    Maybe they just listened to the never-ending internet idiot chorus going on about "I only wear super-high end watches" "I don't wear anything on my wrist costing less than $100,000" "my wrists are allergic to anything that isn't gold", etc etc etc?
  • Mikemk - Sunday, February 15, 2015 - link

    First paragraph, you misspelt "LG"
  • coburn_c - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    Next step is to sell the hardware bare for interchangeable settings.
  • piroroadkill - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    Nice look, but the hardware is all wrong!

    Why the hell does a watch need a quad core 1.2GHz CPU and half a gig of RAM? Jesus, it's a timepiece, not an aircraft guidance system.

    They need to massively cut down the specs and run a much more bare metal system to give us good battery life at a lower price. That's what we need, not this.
  • name99 - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    Uhh, these things are NOT timepieces. If you want a timepiece Casio or Timex (or Rolex or Patek Phillipe) will happily sell you one.

    These devices are wrist-mounted computers. The thing to argue about is whether they perform THAT job well.
  • mgl888 - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    Still, quad core is a bit of an overkill no? It's already an overkill on smartphones.
    I'd step that down to a dual core and leave the RAM intact.
  • jameskatt - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    It kills the battery.
  • FunBunny2 - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    Well, it's the WinTel monopoly all over again, except cpu makers have a raft of different conspirators. But it's the same paradigm: cpu makers (Intel, ARM, etc.) need takers for the increase in cycles/power they keep churning out, while their clients need ever more cycles/power from the cpu to deal with the bloatware they produce. Actually making something new and better? Not on the menu. And don't give me Apple; they've never been first mover in anything that's worked. The flame outs *have* been new stuff. They're really a rather conservative company.
  • eanazag - Tuesday, February 17, 2015 - link

    Apple is generally slow to new tech. The exceptions are as of late. Those exceptions would be computers with PCIexpress SSDs. They have been on the front end of WiFi AC and when you look at all their main products they are leading the AC race. Laptops with the Crystalwell Intel chips mostly only fall in Apple's boat. The Apple TV and device screen streaming was a year ahead in the mobile space. The Apple TV price is too high now; I don't expect it to be at Chromecast pricing. It needs to be around $50.00 today.

    They were a whole year behind in getting 4G in their devices - it was pathetic. NFC was years behind, yet the come to market with a real NFC push on use case - Apple Pay. Many NFC devices were pointless. The Apple Watch is way late as the announcement was almost pointless - it was for investors and not consumers. Yet, the Apple Watch will likely be one of the best sellers in the segment.
  • fteoath64 - Wednesday, February 18, 2015 - link

    Still no GPS and no ANT+ either ?! sony is ahead but chooses not to focus on shell/casing design. You can bet the Apple Watch is 70% design and 30% function. some just prefers it this way...
  • blzd - Thursday, February 19, 2015 - link

    What they usually don't mention is that only 1 of the cores is enabled.

    They could use older, slower SoCs (like Moto did with their TI powered Moto 360) but it actually costs them about the same due to Qualcomm wanting their chips in there and offering manufacturers a good deal. Also the power consumption is probably better on the newer chips with cores disabled.
  • SodaAnt - Tuesday, February 17, 2015 - link

    Because it doesn't, not really. The quad core CPUs in wear watches usually have 3 of the 4 cores disabled, so they are really single core procs. The RAM is just an artifact of them running basically full android, and more RAM really doesn't use that much more power.
  • jameskatt - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    This LG watch looks CHEAP. Why would anyone who does not want to look cheap wear this watch? You might as well buy a Timex or Armitron watch.
  • JeffDM - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    Hello, marketing people - adequate battery life is feature #1. I call BS on this product. A supercomputing watch with a dead battery is dead weight.

    It's nice that it has water resistance though.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now