4 ms·

Ars had an article[0] over the past few weeks about how Qaulcomm isn't creating new chips for Android Wear and therefore smart watches were on the decline / not

Ars had an article[0] over the past few weeks about how Qaulcomm isn't creating new chips for Android Wear and therefore smart watches were on the decline / not improving. Has anything changed? Are there non Apple competitors in the field? [0]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/android-wear-is-getting-killed-and-its-all-qualcomms-fault/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/android-wear-is-gett...

dmitrygr 9y ago
How would ars know what Qualcomm is or isn't doing? Last I checked they were not in the habit of taking out billboards announcing their current in progress parts and product roadmap. Or did I miss a radical shift in their marketing strategy?
- acdha 9y ago
  The article talks about how many years it’s been since Qualcomm even announced a new product in that line. That’s 2 years without a press release while Apple and Samsung shipped multiple hardware generations in the same time, and Qualcomm’s product was based on an old design & fab process which was behind Apple when it first shipped.
  - dmitrygr 9y ago
    Well, I'll grant you that they are not predictable and not always on the ball, but honestly that argument is thin. Extrapolating from just one data point is not even "anecdata", it is just noise.
    - jsight 9y ago
      I understand your point, but I wouldn't exactly call it only one data point. There are quite a few indications from the that there is relatively little interest from existing Android Wear manufacturers for new hardware. Maybe this rebranding is a sign that Google is putting more effort behind it now, though.
- wlesieutre 9y ago
  I know the other replies explained a bit, but if anyone's curious for details, the Qualcomm processor in question is Snapdragon Wear 2100. This was launched in February 2016 [1] and there's hasn't been an update since. Hopefully with Google going through this rebranding exercise they know something about upcoming hardware that we don't. As it stands they've ceded their position for Android smartwatches to Samsung and Fitbit and will have some catching up to do. [1] https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/02/11/snapdragon-wear-2100-made-next-gen-wearables https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/02/11/snapdragon-wear...
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    The big difference is that Tizen with C/C++/JavaScript and Fitbit with SVG/JavaScript seem to be more user friendly (battery life, performance) than whatever Google is trying to do with fitting Android into a watch.
    - wlesieutre 9y ago
      I haven't used one, but I really like the design concept that Samsung landed on with the rotating bezel. It's a bummer that Apple doesn't allow for any significant integration by 3rd party smartwatches on iOS, otherwise it'd be in the running for when my pebble dies. On one hand, I'm still not sold on needing many "smart" features beyond fitness tracking and maybe TOTP codes. If I can't send texts or shop on Amazon from my watch I'm sure life will go on. But if you're missing out on smartwatch features, that makes the price hard to swallow compared to devices like the Amazfit Bip.
Aissen 9y ago
And this is Qualcomm's fault how ? Google decided to single-source and force all the ecosystem on one or two chips; they're not even trying.
username223 9y ago
> Are there non Apple competitors in the field? I'm not in the market for a "smart" watch -- a cheap digital watch runs for a few years on a single battery, does most of what I want, and is indestructible -- but I would look to the companies making GPSes and heart rate monitors. Polar, Garmin, Suunto, and friends have been making durable and power-constrained devices for years. I think they will come at it from the right direction: rather than shoving in features and letting battery life catch up, they will carefully add features as allowed by battery life. I'm a bit surprised Google hasn't bought one yet.

dmitrygr 9y ago

How would ars know what Qualcomm is or isn't doing? Last I checked they were not in the habit of taking out billboards announcing their current in progress parts and product roadmap. Or did I miss a radical shift in their marketing strategy?

acdha 9y ago
The article talks about how many years it’s been since Qualcomm even announced a new product in that line. That’s 2 years without a press release while Apple and Samsung shipped multiple hardware generations in the same time, and Qualcomm’s product was based on an old design & fab process which was behind Apple when it first shipped.
- dmitrygr 9y ago
  Well, I'll grant you that they are not predictable and not always on the ball, but honestly that argument is thin. Extrapolating from just one data point is not even "anecdata", it is just noise.
  - jsight 9y ago
    I understand your point, but I wouldn't exactly call it only one data point. There are quite a few indications from the that there is relatively little interest from existing Android Wear manufacturers for new hardware. Maybe this rebranding is a sign that Google is putting more effort behind it now, though.
wlesieutre 9y ago
I know the other replies explained a bit, but if anyone's curious for details, the Qualcomm processor in question is Snapdragon Wear 2100. This was launched in February 2016 [1] and there's hasn't been an update since. Hopefully with Google going through this rebranding exercise they know something about upcoming hardware that we don't. As it stands they've ceded their position for Android smartwatches to Samsung and Fitbit and will have some catching up to do. [1] https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/02/11/snapdragon-wear-2100-made-next-gen-wearables https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/02/11/snapdragon-wear...
- pjmlp 9y ago
  The big difference is that Tizen with C/C++/JavaScript and Fitbit with SVG/JavaScript seem to be more user friendly (battery life, performance) than whatever Google is trying to do with fitting Android into a watch.
  - wlesieutre 9y ago
    I haven't used one, but I really like the design concept that Samsung landed on with the rotating bezel. It's a bummer that Apple doesn't allow for any significant integration by 3rd party smartwatches on iOS, otherwise it'd be in the running for when my pebble dies. On one hand, I'm still not sold on needing many "smart" features beyond fitness tracking and maybe TOTP codes. If I can't send texts or shop on Amazon from my watch I'm sure life will go on. But if you're missing out on smartwatch features, that makes the price hard to swallow compared to devices like the Amazfit Bip.

Aissen 9y ago

And this is Qualcomm's fault how ? Google decided to single-source and force all the ecosystem on one or two chips; they're not even trying.

username223 9y ago

> Are there non Apple competitors in the field? I'm not in the market for a "smart" watch -- a cheap digital watch runs for a few years on a single battery, does most of what I want, and is indestructible -- but I would look to the companies making GPSes and heart rate monitors. Polar, Garmin, Suunto, and friends have been making durable and power-constrained devices for years. I think they will come at it from the right direction: rather than shoving in features and letting battery life catch up, they will carefully add features as allowed by battery life. I'm a bit surprised Google hasn't bought one yet.