3 ms·

I think Google’s strategy of using watch makers for WearOS is dead, Fossil was last and biggest one. With Android Wear (WearOS 1), it was all electronics compan

I think Google’s strategy of using watch makers for WearOS is dead, Fossil was last and biggest one. With Android Wear (WearOS 1), it was all electronics companies. With WearOS 2, it was watch makers. The watches were slow cause of using old processors. But they had normal and interesting designs. Then WearOS 3 unified Android and Samsung’s Tizen. Also, Google makes own Pixel Watch. The new watches had better processors. I got the feeling that the watch makers had a hard time with new tech.

pjmlp 3y ago
It is going to be the same dead end as Android Things, when they gave up on Brillo and decided to push a mini-Android without NDK instead, naturally lost to Arduinos and ESP32 of the world. WearOS might have the NDK, but still requires beefy CPUs, as it is almost a full Android for all practical purposes. Whereas other smartwatch OSes are a mix of C, C++, pseudo JavaScript with SVG like Zepp OS, or Monkey C on Garmin's case. Most watch makers would rather keep using something like C89 or Assembly, and feeble CPUs, with year long batteries. Which come to think of it is was also how Pebble SDK was originally.
- neodymiumphish 3y ago
  With all the performance enhancements it touted, I really thought Fuschia would be the perfect home for WesrOS hardware, but it seems that'll never happen.
tw04 3y ago
>I got the feeling that the watch makers had a hard time with new tech. I got the feeling that watch makers saw Google give Samsung a 6-month head start on WearOS 3 (as a bribe to kill Tizen) and said: yaaaa... we're not playing this game. https://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-and-googles-secrecy-wear-os-3-has-foiled-its-success-year https://www.androidcentral.com/samsung-and-googles-secrecy-w...