19
Mar
1[6]

During the Q&A section of Motorola's Moto 360 Hangout today, a few interesting questions surfaced. In typical industry fashion, however, Motorola wasn't quite ready to give any sort of definitive answers on many of them. Still, there were a few small gems in the mix, including a big one on everyone's mind: will it work with all Android devices, or just those manufactured by Motorola? The answer was very clear: it will work with all (assumingly current) Motorola devices, as well as all others running Android 4.3 and above. So there you go – it doesn't matter whose phone you're using, if it's running 4.3 or higher, Moto 360 will work with it. That's awesome.

1

Aside from that, there were a few other, more minor, bits of information thrown into the mix like "will it be waterproof?" The answer there was a bit more vague – yes and no. Apparently it will be splash-proof, though Motorola wasn't ready to commit to any sort of quantified measurement at this time.

Then there's the question of charging. Interestingly enough, it was pointed out that the 360 doesn't have any sort of charging port, and Motorola was absolutely ambiguous with the response. Basically, the 360's charging solution is still up in the air. We're willing to wager that it'll be some sort of inductive charging, but we've seen some suggestions that it may be solar or kinetic (both of which are highly unlikely).

There was also some talk of customization, bands, and more in the Hangout. If you missed the live stream, the video is already live, so you can catch the replay above.

Cameron Summerson
Cameron is a self-made geek, Android enthusiast, horror movie fanatic, musician, and cyclist. When he's not pounding keys here at AP, you can find him spending time with his wife and kids, plucking away on the 6-string, spinning on the streets, or watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre on repeat.

  • Matt

    I noticed that they didn't mention compatibility with iOS devices. I wonder if that's a form of tacit verification by omission or just something they want to leave unknown for now...

    • http://blog.jestermx6.com/ George Fayad

      Or if no one cares because anyone with an iOS device will have to be forced at gunpoint to buy a non i-watch

      • Matt

        That's a pretty silly argument. Look at the comment sections on any of the non-Android enthusiast blogs (e.g., The Verge, Engadget, Ars Technica) and you'll notice plenty of people commenting on potential iPhone compatibility. The majority of current smartwatches have some level of cross-platform compatibility and I don't really see why, especially given that Motorola isn't making this Motorola phone-specific, this couldn't be the case with the Moto 360.

        • Sam Hollis

          I think George meant forced at gunpoint meaning that Apple's solution will be far an above anything Google can offer on iOS due to the nature of how locked down it is.

          • Matt

            I can see that point. I really don't see how you could interpret that comment in such a way though:P

          • joser116

            He was saying it doesn't matter if the 360 has iOS compatibility cause it's hard to get iOS users to buy a watch that is not Apple made

          • Andrew Beard

            Plenty of iOS users have purchased a Pebble.

          • joser116

            I know but that's what he was saying.

    • http://turbofool.com Jarrett Lennon Kaufman

      All of the Android Wear articles have been pretty clear about how it functions. It relies pretty much completely upon your Android device's notifications, and all of the SDK talk is about how to modify your Android notifications to better make use of it. So it's rather clearly not iOS-compatible.

    • Justtyn Hutcheson

      It would probably work just fine for Google Now integration with a companion app, but notifications would be difficult, unless Apple opens a Notification API similar to Android's. At the very most, it would only be able to show and dismiss notifications (iOS notifications don't contain actionable items like Android notifications do), and certainly wouldn't be able to do remote media control (there is no system-wide playback API to tie into, Apple only pulls the playback controls for running media to their control center).

      • Matt

        Ah, I see. Thanks for the detailed breakdown.

  • bitbank

    The biggest unanswered question is the price. If it's $99, they'll sell a bunch. If it's $399, then it's just an experiment and not a product for "real" people.

    • Joshua Wise

      I'd think about $199-249 would be something that could take off. Anything higher and I think people would shy away from it because of the idea that it isn't something they must have. Although Motorola has a great opportunity to pair the device with the Moto X for discounted bundle situations.

      • Jewel C. Muller

        They have nothing to gain selling a watch at cost. Wait for the LG watch, that should be more affordable.

      • someone755

        Moto X no-no in Europe. So we in Europe no-no have Moto 360?
        I cri everi tiem.

        I'd love it tho if Moto made an international phone and bundled the watch with it (like Sammy did with Note and Gear).

    • Matt

      Depends on the market they're targeting. $399 is well within the range of watch enthusiasts and, if they're honestly not going to be aiming for annual upgrades like the rest of the consumer gadget space (they hinted that they might not be and might be aiming for a more timeless model), then it could still be a hit.

      • Cory_S

        The difference is a nice watch isn't obsolete in a year. Investing in a watch is easier being it is as good 15 years later as it is the day you bought it.

        • Matt

          Yes I know, but I intuited from the Hangout that that's precisely what Motorola is trying to replicate in the smartwatch space. As to how they're planning to do that with a smartwatch (battery upgrades? maybe some other level of component upgrade?), I'm not quite sure. I admit that I may be misinterpreting though.

          • Cory_S

            I didn't so much get that. They mentioned over and over they wanted it to be fashionable, but I don't think they implied "timeless" as a classic watch is, and if they did that would be rather foolish of them. They are a gadget company, and they will have a slightly better version out next year that is thinner, faster, more waterproof, higher resolution, longer battery life, etc.

        • hp420

          Just because it lasts doesn't mean it's ok to spend that much on an accessory. You know how many people I know who own a watch over $200? 0. Not a single one. Just because this uses a screen and has some chips, boards and bluetooth doesn't justify such a ridiculous price for a damn watch. At the end of the day, all this is is an accessory.

          • Matt

            "You know how many people I know who own a watch over $200? 0. Not a single one."
            That's completely anecdotal evidence though. I own two watches that cost ~$400. Several of my family members and friends own watches that cost closer to $1000. Attempting to extrapolate from my experience to the general public, however, would be similarly flawed logic. That said, there's no dearth of high-selling and highly profitable watch companies that mainly produce watches at price points of >$1000 (e.g., Tag Heuer, Breitling, Rolex, Longines, Omega).

            That's like trying to argue that just because you don't have any friends who own a BMW or Masserati means that the dealerships must be unprofitable or that those manufacturers lack a market. I'm not saying the Moto 360 will be over $200, nor am I saying that it should be priced at that level, but I certainly don't think it's a ridiculous proposition.

          • http://infotainmentempire.blogspot.com Rob

            Plus I know tons of people who have watches over $200, myself included. Maybe he just has cheap friends or people who don't put their money in watches and spend it elsewhere.

          • cgdean2012

            Really where do you buy watches from ??? $200 in UK money is £118 ish !!! I have four watches all of which cost well over £118 my Wife has at least 3 that I know of :-) !!! Most watches that are going to last longer than 12 months and that are of a good quality are over £120. If you want a cheap smartphone watch then it will be unlikely that it will outlast your phone (Average 12-18 months) max especially if you use it everyday. Personally a $300 price tag is reasonable for a new gadget that is a market leader at the time you buy it. If this watch looks good, works with most phones, has a decent battery life and a good range of apps and upgrades that allow it to last it will be a smash at $300 a unit. Its success or failure will be whether its seen as fashionable and whether it works as expected. My own personal view is that Smart-watches aren't quite there yet but this looks like a step in the right direction. You should never knock the early adoptors willing to pay the premium for gadgets as it is them that fund the advancements and the cheaper versions that will eventually come. If it doesn't make money these companies wont bother to release the products !!!!

          • hp420

            Wow...you just replied to a 3 month old post. I'm at a loss for words on that front.

            Second, I don't buy watches. I have absolutely no need for them. The last one I did buy was over 15 years ago. It cost about $20, IIRC. They tell time. One watch tells time just as well as any other, I might add. I wouldn't ever dream of spending that kind of money on something that relies on a device that cost the exact same amount!!!! UNLOCKED and brand new, I might add!!!! That makes this 100% a novelty accessory. The fact that you spend absurd amounts of money on something as trivial and useless as a watch just shows that you have nothing better to spend your money on. I'm sorry I don't live in a fantasy world where money grows on trees, there are no bills, and everyone can afford anything they want at the drop of a hat....back in reality, though, some of us can't afford to spend over a thousand-fucking-dollars on watches. Once you learn to grasp that concept maybe you'll understand the value of a dollar....or a pound, to put it in relative terms.

            Fucking snooty people who can't understand that the whole world isn't filthy rich have to be the most annoying assholes in existence!! What you so arrogantly said was a "reasonable price" is my whole god damned paycheck for a week....yeah...let me drop the whole thing on a watch. Please slap yourself for being so narrow-minded.

          • Guest

            "Do you have any idea how many things I could do with $1,000 that would change people's lives forever?? could build a plantation in a third world African country that would feed an entire village for life with that much money."

            I understand exaggeration but dude the fact that you picked Africa to make your point tells more about you than anything else. Tell me one African country where you could build a shack for $1000 let alone a plantation.

            "Fucking snooty people who can't understand that the whole world isn't filthy rich have to be the most annoying assholes in existence!!"

            I don't think you understand how the rest of the world works at all. Also, can you never reply to people without cursing? Jesus.

          • hp420

            If you want to have a conversation, at least have the decency to log in.

          • Guest

            Why would I go through the bother of creating an account just to make a comment? Would seeing a different name next to my comment make a difference? I see your name but that doesn't tell me much beyond what I've already gleaned from your comments: that you're stubborn, refuse to back down even when you're wrong, and fall back on name calling and profanity when you have nothing else to add to the conversation, especially when you're backed into a corner by your comments.

          • cgdean2012

            I was simply checking for release dates when i came across this article to be honest I hadn't looked at the date of it.

            If you don't use watches as you have no need for them then why are you getting so angry over a watch ???

            This Smart Watch nor Watches in general have anything to do with individual wealth. My point was that most good quality watches cost this much anyway so the Smart Watch is not really that badly priced considering it does a lot more than just tell the time.

            You are right that not everyone can afford that sort of price but that doesn't mean that the watch should be cheaper. Plenty of people can afford to pay the price tag without to much bother. This is being marketed as a top end device which in turn will lead to cheaper devices and a vast second hand market where people who cant afford the top price tag might be able to get one for the price they can afford. Your phone might have cost around this but my phone was £500 so to me its significantly less than half the cost.

            Why do i live in a world where money grows on trees ??? I work hard for my money and have been successful at what I do. Why if i want to spend money on a watch that you can't afford do you feel the need to bleat on about those less fortunate and accuse me of not knowing the value of money. I know exactly the value of money probably better than you do as I have made mine work better for me than you have. Just because i don't give it away to those less fortunate doesn't mean i don't know the value of it.

            I cant go out and buy a Ferarri as i can't afford it but i don't demand that Ferrari make them all cheaper. If i really wanted one i would go out and increase my wealth and work my ass off and make sure i got one.

      • naturalblue

        i don't see why it should cost that much. similar to the chromecast, this isn't much more than a timepiece without your smartphone. i don't see why they would kill you on the price of this, especially when lots of people already pay premium for the phone that will be supplying information to this.

        • Annon

          Google sells hardware at cost to promote Android. If chromecast was from a 3rd party, it would cost closer to $60-70. Price the competition.

      • hp420

        How in the world can you justify spending $400 on an accessory to your phone? That's just insane!! It makes me so mad to see people spending such absurd amounts of money on something like this. $150 is extremely doable, and if it's much more I think it's really going to affect the sales figures.

        • Matt

          I'm not quite sure why my purchasing a $400 watch would make you angry. Sometimes quality costs money and fashion certainly has a wider range of appeal than just functionality. Do you get angry about people buying original artwork, high end TVs rather than low-end Vizios, $1500 gaming PCs over $200 Chromebooks, or jeans other than $20 Walmart ones as well?

          There's something to be said for quality and, although price isn't always an indicator of quality, it certainly can be. Obviously watches and fashion fall somewhat outside your interests, but that doesn't mean the market for those things doesn't exist nor does it mean that products don't sell at that price point.

          • hp420

            Because it's a watch. At the end of the day, that's what it is. Everything else it does can be had with the phone it already relies on.
            And neither watches or fashion are out of my interests, since I already own a nice watch and I dress perfectly nice. You say price doesn't always signify quality, but you assumed just because I say I don't spend a small fortune on these items I can't have interest in them. That's absurd. I assume you've never even glanced at a sale item, then? Or bought online because it's 1/4 the price the brick and mortars charge? The jeans I'm wearing now are made by Gap, and originally cost $70. I bought them on sale for $10. Does that make them less fashionable, or does it make me a wiser consumer?

          • Matt

            Sure, it makes you a wise consumer and, just like anybody else, I certainly search for sale items if possible. That doesn't mean that a $400 watch is "a small fortune" for a watch; one of mine was priced down from $550...I considered that a good deal. $400 is nowhere near the high end of watch pricing and I'm sure you're well-aware of that if watches fall inside your interests. $70 for jeans, similarly, is budget-minded for quite a few people interested in jeans (certain raw denim brands can easily fetch $200-$300). You're basically arguing that there should be one segment of a market: the budget segment, but that just isn't the case with almost any consumer space. Watches can exist at $40, $400, $4000, and $40,000 price points; jeans can similarly exist anywhere between $10-500. It's not an either-or scenario and fashion specifically is known for various strata of price points. There's nothing wrong with that.

          • hp420

            I'm not saying a budget segment should stand alone. I'm saying it should never be ruled out.

            ...and yes, $400 is a small fortune to spend on any one single item when that's a vast majority of what you get on an average week's paycheck. I'm lucky if I have $30 left over from my check after I pay all my bills, buy food, etc. How long do you think it would take me to save up for a $400 watch? Or do you think it would be wiser for me to buy a $150 watch? That's the only point I'm making here. Most people don't have the money to spend $400 on a watch....or even $300, for that matter. If they want to appeal to a majority of the consumers who will actually buy this, they will have to hit the $200 price range, IMHO. If this one just costs too much to sell it that low and they were to release a trimmed down model for $100-150, even better!!

          • Matt

            Right, but all these points relate specifically to yourself as the consumer. I'm just saying that other segments of the market exist and Motorola could be targeting those segments. The median salary in the US was $786 per week in December 2013 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Obviously taxes and necessities (food, water, rent, mortgage, what have you) are going to take away some portions of that, but $400 for a hobby doesn't really require that many weeks of saving for an American worker; even less if you consider the fact that ~50% of the work force earns above that level.

            Video games/game consoles, music, movies, other forms of personal tech can individually cost several hundred dollars per year for people interested in them. A single game console costs $400-600, games cost $50-60 each; if somebody goes to one movie at a multiplex every 4 weeks and spends ~$20 on a ticket and some concessions, that's $260 per year; a smartphone costs $200 when carrie-subsidized and an average data plan costs ~$60, adding to about $720 per year on that alone. People who spend money on watches or other fashion accessories see it very similarly to those who use money like that for entertainment purposes or for dining at restaurants.

            People pick and choose how to spend disposable income, but $400 isn't necessarily a small fortune for the entire population and certainly not if you consider that it's an accessory they many use every day or every other day for several years (I've had one of my watches for 11 years and wore it daily for 8 of them). It's not like splurging on a fancy dinner or a vacation; it's something people get a lot of use out of and that can be pretty central to a business or even fashion-conscious wardrobe.

            I'm not necessarily saying that Motorola will price this at $400 rather than $150-200, but I'm also not saying that that's as far outside the realm of possibility and potential success as you seem to think.

          • richie97

            Then wait for it go on sale, for fucks sake, and stop crying.

            Want a cheaper watch? Wait for the inevitable race to the bottom, because early adopter status isn't for you.

      • John Samuel αΩ

        If they're only targeting watch enthusiasts then they'll only need to manufacture about ten of these.

    • http://turbofool.com Jarrett Lennon Kaufman

      Based on build alone, I'm expecting a minimum of $199, but far more likely $299.

    • joeljfischer

      I extremely highly doubt that a $99 watch like this could possibly be anything other than a throwaway device. You have to remember that this device will not be cheap to make. Round screens? I'd imagine spinning up tooling will be extremely expensive. A solid battery? Wireless charging? I can't see this being less than $249, which I would happily pay for a device the delivers on everything this promises to.

    • remister

      I think 150$ is do-able. I mean it's not a phone. It relies on the notification system on your phone to function.

      • http://jordanhotmann.com/ Jordan Hotmann

        $150 is about where my limit is. I'm not expecting the Moto 360 to be $150 or under, but maybe the LG will be a bit more affordable as it looks less "premium" from the pictures. I really want a smartwatch, but don't want one enough to spend a ton of money.

    • http://www.androidpolice.com/ Cameron Summerson

      No way it'll be $99. I'm betting on around $250.

      • someone755

        No way but a girl can dream, can't she? c:
        Anyways if your price is correct then we'll be getting it for around 260€ in Europe.

    • naturalblue

      i'm very interested in the price as well. i currently don't wear a watch because i use my phone for the time. this will just be a device to allow me not to reach for my phone for this task. anything over the $149-$199 range wouldn't make much sense to me.

    • joser116

      I would still buy it, even if it's $399.

      • hp420

        Not me. My top dollar is $150...maybe a few $ more,m but that's starting to get out of my price range for a watch, no matter what tech it has or how cool it is.

        • AbbyZFresh

          only $150? With the premium materials and components used in the watch?

          Fat chance.

          • hp420

            ONLY!?!?!?!?!? It's a goddamn watch, not a flying car!! I refuse to spend that much on an accessory. If they want this sort of tech to really take off, it needs to be affordable, and I'd wager that 99% of the world does NOT consider anything over $150 for a watch an affordable price.

          • Nick

            Exactly, It's a watch with premium materials, nevermind the fact it's apart of the first generation of tech for smart watches. I would happily pay $250-$300 for this watch and I could go higher considering.

          • hp420

            Must be nice to wipe your ass with $100 bills.

          • gilahacker

            Nah, the papercuts are really nasty. :-P

          • Annan

            Reality check: Several brands of Jeans are now $100-200. Motorolla isn't Google. They have nothing to gain selling a watch at cost. Wait for the LG watch, that should be more affordable.

          • hp420

            And I don't buy those jeans.

            Reality check: most people don't have enough money to justify spending more than $200 on something like this.

            The world is not as rich as you people seem to think! It makes me sick to my stomach to think that you are all willing to spend what is a majority percentage of a week's pay for me on a watch!!! And I make well-over minimum wage, and work overtime almost every week. I can't imagine saving up for 2-3 months for a watch...that's just absolutely absurd. It makes me wonder if so many products cost as much as they do because of stupid sheeple who will actually spend that much. A logical person would say that if everyone refused to pay as much as most people do on an expensive product then the price would go down. Supply and demand. If everyone stopped buying $3000 televisions, the same exact model would only cost a fraction of that. It's not like the manufacturer isn't making a 5000% profit when you buy a 65" television. They could still stay afloat if they only made a 500% profit, you know.

          • Ashish

            incorrect, if your example was true many players would be entering the television market to get a piece of the pie. Instead the TV market has one of the highest cost of entry.

          • qu4ttro

            200 is a majority percentage of a weeks pay?! Perhaps you should pursue some additional education to improve your job prospects and put the 420 down, that alone would save you some $$$...

          • THE Roen

            At most he's making $62089-ish......if $200 is a majority of his after tax pay.

          • http://infotainmentempire.blogspot.com Rob

            I'm guessing you buy phones on contract and not full retail?

            Also, the Fitbit Flex is $99, the Force is $130. I highly doubt this will be $150 or less.

          • hp420

            What??? I'm in it to save money. Why would I pay 50% more just because the up-front cost is lower?

            I buy only Nexus phones, exclusively from Google Play. And I use them on Tmobile prepaid. I don't spend a penny more than I have to for anything....not because I'm a cheap-ass, but because I simply can't afford to.

          • http://infotainmentempire.blogspot.com Rob

            Then I would get the idea of buying the Moto 360 out of your head. Honestly, I just can't see it being under $150. Look at similar products out already. Pebble Steel is $249. The Moto Activ fitness trackers they used to sell was around $200-250+ I believe when it first came out. I'm thinking this will be priced AT LEAST $199 but more likely around $249-299+.

          • hp420

            ...and look at how many they have sold at that price (moto activ). I sincerely believe the average consumer will look at this as a novelty accessory, and no one in their right mind is going to spend that much on an accessory. It's not like a phone that does everything on its own. This relies on something else to do all the work for it...it's just an extension of that.

            The way I see it is this: Galaxy Gear costs $250 (?). Motorola said it will price this competitively. In order to do that they have to undercut all the competition by at least $50...that makes this $200. At that price I would be pressed to afford it, but I could swing it with some planning and saving. At $250, it's out of the question. My sweet spot is $150, and I'm sticking to that. Unless there is another smartwatch that can do all this one does and costs $150, I'll simply not buy one. The first rule of marketing: sell your product for less than the competition, and your overall profit will almost always be better than your competition. Making a few less dollars per sale won't matter at the end of the day.

          • http://infotainmentempire.blogspot.com Rob

            No, the first rule of marketing is make sure everyone is aware of your product. Moto Activ didn't sell because it wasn't marketed very well. And it was ahead of its time, honestly. Adidas has a very advanced fitness tracker but it costs either $400 or 500 (yes, pretty high dollar if you ask anyone).

            Galaxy Gear looks like garbage to me. Complete garbage. And I don't even think the Moto 360 is even in the same class as Galaxy Gear (horrible design, useless camera, ugly cheap plastic/rubbery strap, limited notifications, and most importantly, limited devices that can be used with it, at least for now).

          • hp420

            Yeah, I agree about activ. And galaxy gear lol

            I just wish the gear fit would work on all androids like the Moto 360 will. That's honestly my #1 choice, but again way out of my price range.

            The thing I don't understand is this: OEMs want this tech to take off. Badly!! I can easily find an unlocked phone at full retail for $300. The accessory that accompanies it shouldn't cost more than half its price. I spent $350 full retail on my current device, and when I bought it it was easily in the top 5 android devices on the market. How would anyone rightfully justify spending just as much (or close to it) on something that's got only a fraction of the capabilities their phone does? I understand some people spend far more for their phone than I do, but that still doesn't mean something that is (for lack of a better term) a gimped smartphone with a wristband should cost that much. Budget smartphones do a whole lot more than this does, and they retail at the same price most people here are willing to spend on this. That's just totally absurd!!! It seems that in this thread the sweet spot for most people is $250.... can get a Moto G at full retail for about 75% that price, and it will do WAY more than a smartwatch, not to mention the parts that go into it probably cost Motorola 5x as much.

          • http://infotainmentempire.blogspot.com Rob

            You forget that Google is not trying to profit off of the Nexus line of devices, they are trying to get Android into the hands of as many people as possible. They are selling it either at cost or just above cost (maybe even at a loss) with a much lower profit margin than any OEM does for their phones. People don't understand that phones are pricey to begin with - it's basically a mini laptop that fits in your pocket and has a faster internet connection than most people's homes (well, in the case of LTE). The Moto G is so cheap because it's a 3G phone (no LTE), doesn't have the best screen, and was purposefully built to be a cheap device. I don't think Moto (or any wearable company) is trying to make a cheap, entry level watch. Maybe later when they get the manufacturing cost and the economies of scale kicks in (with more people purchasing their products). As for the Gear Fit, I personally dislike the shape and design of it as well. It is overkill for what it was intended and the horizontal orientation looks terrible. Even when I type on my keyboard right now my wrist is not perfectly 180 flat, it's curved in. Never is my wrist perpendicular to my view, it's always at a slight angle curved inward (for my left arm). This is why I rock the shit out of my Fitbit Force - it's comfortable and does more than I need it to.

            You also forget that even though a watch may not do as much as a phone (since it is an accessory like you say), it still needs to be able to fit a bunch of components into an even smaller space than a phone. It also needs to be somewhat sweat/water resistant, sturdy, but also stylish.

          • hp420

            So then you're saying it's ok for OEMs to tack on a 70% price hike just because they want you to pay that?? I understand people have overhead. I fully understand business. What I don't understand is how everyone is just ok with the fact that when something only costs, say, $40 to make the retail price ends up being $300. That's not acceptable. I wouldn't ever pay an over-inflated price like that for anything. That's why I always wait for a price-drop, sale, or something like that. I refuse to support greed, and that's exactly what this sort of thing is. If it costs too much to produce for it to carry a fair price tag, then it should be redesigned...or maybe I should say the design should have never been adopted in the first place. I think if they are going for the premium-only market right out of the gate they are making a huge mistake. The average consumer doesn't want to hear they can't afford the cool new thing their friend just got. They want to hear an affordable price so they know that even if they don't actually go right out and buy one, they can in the future.

            About the gear fit, I've heard it can flip to portrait mode so the display would be readable from a normal angle for a watch.

          • http://infotainmentempire.blogspot.com Rob

            Where did I state it's OK for OEMs to make such huge profit margins? You seem to assume a lot from what people state. I merely said Google sells their products with little to no profit.

            "I refuse to support greed." If you live in any society that has a free market you are supporting greed. The beautiful thing about capitalism is you, the consumer, have the power to choose what and how much you spend your money on. Yeah, it sucks that some stuff is expensive or what some think is overpriced. I really hate the fact that I can't buy true surround sound headphones for my Xbox One under $200 brand new. But it's my choice whether I purchase a set or not.

            So when the Gear Fit is read in portrait mode, does it clutter up the rest of the screen or just use part of the screen and have a bunch of useless real estate? I still think the Gear Fit looks terrible, even though most people think it's so great. I still can't believe it won whatever award at CES or MWC. I don't need a device to tell me my BPM. I just want one that shows me the time, distance traveled, and a stop watch that I can wear all day easily, and the Fitbit Force is what I use. I'm not an athlete nor morbidly obese so I don't need biometrics like BPM, but others may need/want it. But what I'm saying is the Fitbit Force is priced at $130 and the Moto 360 does much more (at least it seems like it) so I highly doubt it will be in the price range you're hoping it will be.

            Plus, I have a Citizen watch that retails for over $600 but my wife bought it for me around $400. Yes, it's expensive, but it never needs a battery and updates the time every night at 2 am since it has atomic clock capabilities. Seeing that a titanium band, sapphire crystal cover, and solar charged power supply in a handsome case costs over $400 (and MSRPs for over $600), I REALLY doubt that the Moto 360 will be sub $200. That doesn't mean I don't want it to be, I'm just being realistic.

          • Henrique P.

            I don't think the worst thing with phones on contract is people ending up paying more. It's the mentality that's so fucked up they can't value things properly. I've seen plenty of people calling Nexus phones and tablets expensive. So yeah, this is bad.

          • Misanthrope

            Yeah, it's mostly the same components as your 400-600 dollar phone, with a LOT of more engineering for a round display, more software and battery optimisations, crazy innovations for a battery and components of this size, but yeah, 150dollars is the maximum price... Need a reality check on real world, engineering, and developers.

          • hp420

            ...and you need a reading comprehension lesson, because I never said this specific watch in no way could cost over $150. I said that's my optimal price, and I wouldn't be able to justify spending more than that. I would like a product that hits that price range, and I think a vast majority of people interested in this sort of thing would agree. I never said there shouldn't be a premium model out there for people with deep pockets. I simply meant I would like to see a more budget-oriented device with similar features and usability.

            Also, IMO, since a watch with a $3-400 price tag puts it into the more premium end, I feel like the one that should be pushed harder should be the one that more people will actually choose. And since the average consumer just isn't going to spend $400 on something that's redundant for all intents and purposes, the one that should get a majority of the attention would be the more budget-oriented one.

          • Paul_Werner

            I totally agree with you and think that $150 is my sweet spot for this too. I paid $160 for the Atlas:

            http://goo.gl/O9rt4P

            It's more geared toward fitness and not so much a smartwatch but I felt for what it can do (or what they say it will do once they release in December) it was worth the $160.

            I'm glad the first Android Wear watches are coming out before my Atlas though. If the cost is around what my Atlas was and if they decide to add more Activity Recognition triggers to detect more than just dancing and the base ones in Android now (i.e. more recognized exercises) than I'll be asking for a refund on my Atlas and picking one of these up

          • hot_spare

            No, it doesn't have the same components of a smartphone. Don't be ridiculous. First and foremost it doesn't have any of your radios or a SIM connection or half of the things related to communication. No GPS/GLONASS, audio capabilities, severely gimped SOC etc., Not to mention phones will do most of the heavy lifting, clock will just show you the information/notification. It also doesn't contain camera, or tons of other sensors that a phone might have.

            It's a wonderful piece of tech, just don't overhype that thing.

          • someone755

            Really need an idea that people aren't full of cash. If we were, I'd get my flying car and teleport myself next to your door and use one of my clones to high-five you.

          • Perry

            Agree with you. But with different reason.
            I refuse to buy expensive gadgets and accessories, not because I can't afford its price, but because I can't afford it to get stolen or missing.
            Suppose I bought a $200 smartwatch then it got pickpocket on public transport ? Hell no.

            I will not buy smartwatch over $100. So that I can wear it everywhere, without worries.

          • John Samuel αΩ

            $399 is more than a modern Nexus. I don't see what would justify the price.

          • Ashish

            The $300 nexus trend started in 2012, correct? when did the smartphone movement start, I think it safe to say right around the iPhone time frame, which would be 2007. Don't expect bleeding edge technology to come cheap. Hell, Google Glass is $1500

      • NinoBr0wn

        That's a joke, just like these other smart watches. I'd buy an actual watch for that price.

        • joser116

          The other smartwatches don't compare to this one. This one looks like a game-changer, not just because of its circular design.

      • sud007

        Cheers!

    • Anfronie

      I think $250 to $300 is the sweet spot for smart watches right now. It better not be over $300 if they expect to sell a lot.

    • sud007

      absolutely, it will stand apart if price is under reach. Will hit the Bull's Eye in sales!

    • DirkBelig

      >" If it's $399, then it's just an experiment and not a product for "real" people."

      Put an Apple logo on a $399 iWatch and it will be declared the winner of the smartwatch wars, even if it didn't tell time or have any functionality other than having a face which was nothing but the glowing logo. Basically it could be the lid of a MacBook Pro shrunk down and attached to a wristband and it would be the Greatest. Thing. Evar!

  • Dominic Powell

    I think a combination of both charging solutions would be awesome. Especially with Kinetic charging. It could potentially make this watch extremely attractive to "active" people. Think about people going on a run for 30 + minutes a day or doing some sort of workout - Imagine if said 30 minutes gave the watch anything from 6 - 12 Hours of charge? Couple that with a base battery life of ~3-4 Days. and you could have a "joggers" smartwatch that lasts 5-7 days on a single charge. Or one that you could wear camping or hiking and not have to really worry about it.

    • dogulas

      No way kinetic charging would do that much. Kinetic charging was typically used for classical low-power watches. A half hour of exercise would give this thing an extra 10 minutes tops. More like three minutes in reality.

  • Shane Redman

    Oh please be kenetic and/or solar. I have an eco-drive w/ auto-relay and it's so nice to not have to worry about replacing battery or resetting the time

    • Cory_S

      At best I could see something like that being used t supplement the battery...but it simply isn't possible for the only method of charging.

      • Shane Redman

        well....there's this http://techcrunch.com/2007/04/22/patent-monkey-lcd-solar-cell-smart/

        but I agree with you, maybe conductive charging and this solar display

      • Justtyn Hutcheson

        Depends on the overall usage I would assume. It would probably be enough to power the "watch" function (black display they keep showing) almost indefinitely (the guy did say the "time is always available. always."...reading too much into things?). It may be enough to provide total system power if they combine several different methods (thermal difference, kinetic, piezo-electric, solar). Inductive may be a backup method, but if it's the primary method they wouldn't be quite so coy about it, I don't think, especially referring to it as "secret sauce". One of the more frustrating things that we simply don't know enough to determine, and they will guard to the death until they release (and for as long as they can afterwards).

        • Cory_S

          Agreed. I could see that being used for a low powered bare essentials mode.

  • Animate

    It they manage to make it kinetic I'll be more than willing to pay the additional cost up to a point. My kinetic watch is by far my favorite.

  • Cory_S

    he also offhandedly mentioned the screen size of about 1.8". Also looked like an AMOLED screen to me when they briefly accidently turned them on.

    • Justtyn Hutcheson

      Glad I'm not the only one who caught that. "If the face was, say, 46mm"...cmon dude, that is way too plausible, specific, and quick of a number for it to be anything but really really close to the right size.

  • nebula

    I'm pretty sure, that he said, that it is designed to be water proof

    • Cory_S

      He said water resistant. Which can mean anything really.

      • Justtyn Hutcheson

        "water resistant", when applied to watches, and without a depth indicator, is roughly equivlaent to IP x4 ("splash resistant"); with a depth indicator of 1m it is IP x7 (standard definition of "water resistant"), beyond that it is IP x8 (water proof). Given what they've said, I'd expect IP 57, so short swims are OK but diving is a no-go.

  • Reid Knight

    Guys, you're missing the point of this video. It's round. The watch is round.
    On a more serious note, I'm incredibly excited for this.

    • http://www.androidpolice.com/ Cameron Summerson

      Wait, what? ROUND LCDs DON'T EXIST YET THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE

    • Annon

      Motorola manufactured round cell phone screens over 5 years ago. Search for the Aura. But they have to be more difficult and costly to make than the mass produced 16:9 ones.

  • Cory_S

    I really wanna know what glass they are using on this. I really hope they went for sapphire. My watch with a sapphire face still looks as flawless as when I bought it 6 years ago, and I work on cars.

    • Reid Knight

      Sapphire would make it more expensive, but on a watch that they want and expect to last, I would welcome that increase.

      • Cory_S

        Agreed. I would much prefer a 500 dollar watch that held up to daily use, then a 200 dollar watch that looked like crap 2 months after I got it. Watches are not supposed to be disposable. Smart Watches are going to need to walk a tricky line between style, endurance, and the unavoidable fact they will be replaced with he next best thing in a year or two.

        • Dominic Powell

          Well they did say they intend to make the watch personable and customizable through Moto Maker... Maybe a Sapphire display as a ~ $50 - $100 upgrade may be a smart business decision? I know the more watch conscious people would probably spend the extra $$ for the sapphire display...

          • Justtyn Hutcheson

            I don't think that will be an option. Considering they keep going on about "premium" materials, *not* using sapphire glass or a very similar material (i.e. not Gorilla Glass, which is more shatter-resistant than scratch resistant) would be a pretty terrible omission/oversight.

    • Anfronie

      I don't think its going to have that long of a lifespan because rechargeable batteries do not last that long. If its lithium ion the battery will degrade in a 2 to 3 year time period anyways.

  • Jeffrey Tarman

    I would hope the watch has electromagnetic recharging capabilities. I currently have a watch for 9 years now and it only needs a 3 hour charge every 4 months. If they could use this tech, then maybe 3 - 4 days would be just fine. Most of us charge our phones at least once a day, just place the watch on the charger at night

    • hp420

      You do realize compared to your old watch this is gonna suck up juice like a '78 dodge??

      • Jeffrey Tarman

        Depends, with new tech and code, even if the battery lasts 2 days that should be fine. The bulk of your day will be still be spent on the phone/tablet while you use the watch as a secondary device such as glancing at the watch during a meeting instead of your phone.

        If your phone is off or left out of range, then the watch will function as a normal watch and battery life shouldn't be an issue

        • hp420

          You're being far too generous with the amount of time a charge will last using the tech you're talking about. A standard watch uses nothing but mechanical dials and gears to run. A smartwatch uses a screen, bluetooth, possibly wifi, etc, etc, etc....I'd be willing to bet the moto 360 uses over 1,000x the power consumption of the exact watch you're referring to. if you have to charge your standard watch every 4 months, 1/1000 of that time is every 2.88 hours. Even 100x the power consumption would mean charging about once a day.

  • TheUndertaker21

    they claim they have made this product, meanwhile the Fans still know NOTHING about its specs!!! what a Launch!!!!

    • joeljfischer

      It's not a launch. It's a tease. It won't be out for a minimum of 3 months (I'd guess closer to 6). We'll know more eventually.

      • Michigan Guy

        "summer 2014"

        • Justtyn Hutcheson

          Google I/O, late June, which is also the end of Q2.
          Methinks that would be a great time to launch for both LG and Moto.

        • joeljfischer

          I know. Summer starts in 3 months and ends in roughly 6

    • NOT RahmEmanuel

      I don't think 'launch' means what you think it means.

      Then again, I don't think 'think' means what you think it means.
      .

      • TheUndertaker21

        your stupidity has no limit biatch

    • hp420

      For this to be a launch, a product must be available to purchase. That's not the case. This is just an announcement.

  • youareme7

    Technically they said "water resistant". which could mean it's able to be submerged upto 1 meter. maybe. or maybe it really is just "splash resistant"

    • Justtyn Hutcheson

      An IP 56 watch wouldn't last very long. It needs to be IP57, since there's every chance you could be wearing it while, say getting pushed into a pool. Your phone fizzling is one thing. Your watch going dead would royally irritate someone.

      • Cj

        You shouldn't walk around getting shoved into pools then :P

  • David Nolan

    "No watch in this device"!

    • AGWednesday

      I noticed that too ;-). Was waiting for one of them to realize the mistake.

      • Justtyn Hutcheson

        When you're live, you just keep going. That's really the only thing you can do.

      • hp420

        Me too. It looked like someone over by the cameraman was trying to tell him that, but since they were wrapping up they just let it go.

  • Simon Belmont

    I'm guessing this will be in the $200-$300 range. Maybe a tad more.

    Certainly the sweet-spot for a premium smartwatch, IMO. It really looks classy.

    • remister

      $150 for me.

  • brkshr

    I'm betting the watch will for any from $250 - $350.

  • jamaall

    If it looked ugly i bet everyone would lower their 'guess' price. Just because it looks great doesn't mean motorola is going to jack up the price. They could, but the direction motorola is in doesn't indicate that they will do that. I'm being hopeful.

  • *unix

    They are planing to release that thing in summer and they are not sure how it will be charged? Did I miss something?

    • Trent

      They quite obviously know. They just want to tease it and keep things back. I hope that you don't truly think a manufacturer of this size would be this far into the process of a new product launch and not know everything relevant.

      • *unix

        Thank you for the clarification. I´m very curious about the solution they will come up with.

    • papernick

      Yes. They didn't say they didn't know, they said it's a secret.

  • hp420

    No camera...slightly disappointing, but far from a deal-breaker!! The biggest perk for this, I would think, would be a cheaper manufacturing cost. These estimates of $350 seem extremely high to me, considering this omission, and the fact that Motorola has specifically said it will be competitively priced. If they make it more affordable to more people then more people will buy one, and they can make up any potential loss after much of the world uses a smartwatch. I'm gonna throw my hat in the ring and say a $200 price tag sounds very reasonable, but I'm hoping for a price closer to $150 since I want one and I can't afford spending much more

    • MeCampbell30

      I dont need a camera on my wrist. I'm not James Bond.

    • AbbyZFresh

      So you want to your hands to be sliced off by a crazy maniac who does not want to be recorded at?

      Motorola is not turning this into Glass.

      • hp420

        If I am wearing glass, a smartwatch, or using any other technology capable of doing a profile search and anyone near me even so much as mentions any privacy concerns, I will literally punch them square in the suck hole and walk away. I'm so tired of people beating this dead horse. Don't get me wrong, I understand you're not specifically saying you are one of these people, but here's my view on this matter: NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THESE PEOPLE. I DON'T WANT TO LOOK THEM UP....I JUST COULDN'T CARE LESS.

        Sorry for caps, but I want to express just how frustrated I've become listening to people bitch about this ridiculous excuse to try and have probably the best invention for every day glasses-wearers banned. I wear glasses every day, and I have since I was 6...I'm not 32. I want Glass more than I want laser eye surgery lol I don't think these people realize how much of an improvement this could be for people like me.

        • EH101

          LASIK >> Google Glass. I can't even explain to you how awesome it is waking up with clear vision every single day, and having clear vision beyond the edge of the lens. The latter could be experienced with contacts, though. It's definitely something those with 20/20 take for granted.

    • Cj

      Honestly don't see a need for a camera on a smartwatch.

  • dogulas

    So if the UI can flip when worn on the right wrist and whatnot, does that mean the black space will be on top then? It seems like that area of the screen had to be black.

  • Adam Watts

    I wonder why the bottom of the screen doesn't work. I assume an engineering related reason, but it sort of ruins the beauty a bit for me.

    • Anfronie

      On screen home/back button is my guess.

  • Sean Thomas

    charging is the last piece of the User experience that could be good or bad. I wanna know!

    • Anfronie

      It's gotta be wireless charging

  • Aaron Huffman

    Wireless chargind, durr.

  • lordmerovingian

    Since Google has been pretty good with its apps on iOS, any word on working with iOS?

    • GreatNews

      If iOS is running Android 4.3 or above than yes.... Oh you are talking about Apple well for that will be the answer NO and probably NEVER

      • lordmerovingian

        You know if you have nothing useful to add then best not to even try.

    • AbbyZFresh

      The question is why would you get Android Wear when iWatch will be far more optimized for iOS.

      • lordmerovingian

        Why not? Current Google Apps/services play nice with iDevices as they are right now. (I know we're talking about hardware right now).
        We know nothing of this iWatch so I'm not interested nothing intangible until we do have any info.
        I use both platforms and just curious. We'll see I guess.

  • Cody Shiranai

    Since I honestly don't know, what Android version is the Moto G on or is it just as up to date as an almost Nexus should be? My friend who loves watches would want to get this and I know he's getting a Moto G (or Moto X or Nexus 5 depending on his tax return). Obviously the latter two aren't going to be a problem, but what about the Moto G?

    • j7981

      It'll work - I think the G has Android 4.4

    • wsoul1

      All Moto devices are supported. Non-Moto 4.3 and up.

  • thisguy

    The most I'm willing to pay for it it $150.00. It makes no sense to have a smart watch for 300something when you can buy a whole phone for that same price. $100.00 - $150.00 seems about right

    • Kenton Douglas

      you wont be getting one then! :)

      • yankeesusa

        Then that means that many people won't be getting one. Just look at what happened to the galaxy gear. And a friend at best buy just told me that the sony smartwatch 2 had a bunch of returns too. So at this point the price point of $200 or less is the only thing that will make these watches pick up steam

        • Kenton Douglas

          $100-150 was quoted above. Also, lets see the final spec and build quality of the Moto 360 before deciding

  • Dick Butkus

    This what the hell im talking bout!!

  • Mark Washington

    $250 = no brainer I am getting one
    $300 = maybe have to hold off until the price drop or perfect for giving to someone as a gift. I wouldn't mind receiving that gift by the way.
    Hard to justify a $300 price tag ... Yet women by expensive Michael Kors purses all the time!

    • ThomasMoneyhon

      I'm guessing no more than $350. We have to remember that fossil is joining this program and plans to release their models as well. Moto 360 cant be priced into the 4-5,600 range.

      • Mark Washington

        I would say this if it is limited edition limited quantity whatever the case, that would tempt me more so to get one . Sad to say I would love for this device to be a rare commodity.,

  • Rico World Peace

    One word , "motoacv". They will never support this watch ,just like they never supported thier last smartwatch. Fool me once shame on me , fool me twice.......

    • ThomasMoneyhon

      Your the fool for thinking this is the same Motorola that got them in the hole they are in now. Since the moto X they have only done folks a solid. Moto X G and I have no doubt, the 360, are/will be great products.

      MotoActiv was from the old Motorola where they made mistakes (mostly being Verizon's b*tch) and I see this set of current products returning them to their glory days, sure they may never be on top like Samsung and apple, but they can have a loyal following that pays the bills for Lenovo (and hopefully some more).

      • Rico World Peace

        and I have a bridge to sell you. One phone backed by Google proves nothing. Go read their forums and come back and say they have changed. But then again, I am sure your working for them or their marketing team. This device will flop hard. Just watch. (pun intended)

  • jesuguru

    My guess: $299 at launch, dropped to $249 around holiday shopping season, then to $199 next year as v2 approaches.

  • David Anderton

    I won't be buying any smartwatch until they are waterproofed to the point that I can take them surfing and can last a few days without charging. Also I would not spend over $200.

    • http://morgester.com/ Alex Morgan

      You're going to be waiting a long time then. To make a device fully waterproof is currently expensive.

  • James

    OMG! A watch for people with no life. Yeah!

  • TRACE

    Moto pulled this off many years ago

  • Jon Dwyer

    I agree with most with price on this watch. I feel 199.00 would keep me interested on purchasing the 360. If the price tag is much higher I will pass. I'm only interested now because of the cool features and great design. But 199.00 is still pushing it as my phone already does what this offers. The first thing I said about people buying the galaxy gear is how much it proved they were true Samtards. And that's my biggest concern with how Motorola will price this. The galaxy gear isn't half as nice as the 360 and Samsung is selling that crap for 299.00. I realize only a few Samtards bought the gear and I hope Motorola learned from that flop. People are not going to pay huge money for something there phone already does- unless your a Samtard.

Quantcast