Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Six Things We Want From an Android Smartwatch

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 21 comments

We look to the future of smart watches.

Currently there are around five smartwatches on the market: the Galaxy Gear, the Martian, the Pebble, the Sony Smart Watch 2 and the Qualcomm Toq. Each have their own capabilities, but none are perfect. Google's now has the opportunity to make the perfect smartwatch with Android Wear. Ultimately, what do we want to see from a smartwatch? This is our wishlist:

Standalone
We would like our smart watches to work on their own, please. That means installing apps directly on the device, making calls without having to pull the phone out of our pockets, and supporting a Wireless N (or AC) network. Tethering from a smartphone should only occur while outside a local network. Note that the Galaxy Gear and Martian are capable of making calls, but they still require a paired smartphone.

Local Storage
This goes along with the previous standalone concept: locally installed apps need local storage. But let's push that even further. What if the smartwatch had enough local storage to play host to movies, videos and music. Users could plug in earphones and listen to their favorite album without needing an MP3 player or phone. Of course, this would require a better, smartphone-class battery.

Video Playback
Eventually this is going to happen. Smart watches will provide support for the various types of video compression, allowing users to watch a purchased movie or one taken by the user's smartphone camera. Smart watches would also need a mini-HDMI output component, or perhaps a way to stream video to a smart TV or some other DLNA-certified device.

Internet Browser
Sure, the internet would be rather small on a smart watch face, but smartphones started with small screens and highly simple internet pages. This is also where the local storage comes into play: storing Internet cache so that the browser isn't burning up the battery charge by downloading pages over and over. This would seemingly need a screen capable of a decent resolution and ppi.

Remote Control
What if you could control a desktop or laptop simply by touching the screen of your smart watch? That would be an interesting feature, requiring users to install apps on both platforms. Roccat does something similar with its Power-Grid software, which requires both the smartphone/tablet and desktop/laptop to remain on the same wireless network. Using a smartwatch to turn a room's lights on and off would be a neat feature as well.

Activate the Teleporter
Ok maybe we're asking too much.

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
  • 2 Hide
    iknowhowtofixit , March 19, 2014 8:36 AM
    Why not a heart rate monitor? It would seem stupid to have to take this off to put a heart rate monitor on when you work out.
  • 1 Hide
    Onus , March 19, 2014 9:33 AM
    You're asking way too much. This is a wristwatch; it tells the time. Maybe it can show other simple measures such as footsteps or the afore-mentioned heart rate. Aside from simple measurements like these, it is not a computer, a multimedia host, or a web browser; if you need those, get a smartphone or tablet (which can also tell you the time). A wristwatch needs to be small, and require minimal attention (daily or even weekly charging is OUT); this may preclude even simple chores like showing the weather.
  • -1 Hide
    CaptainTom , March 19, 2014 9:34 AM
    Because few people will pay $200 for a heart rate monitor. They already exist bud. This is not for that.
  • Display all 21 comments.
  • 2 Hide
    mastrom101 , March 19, 2014 9:46 AM
    I agree with Onus. I like the idea of a smartwatch, but for basic purposes like time, weather, checking emails, steps, etc. When I need to watch videos and browse the web, I might as well pull out my phone.
  • 1 Hide
    iknowhowtofixit , March 19, 2014 10:25 AM
    Quote:
    Because few people will pay $200 for a heart rate monitor. They already exist bud. This is not for that.
    Obviously you are not educated in the heart rate monitor market. Some of those devices go for well over $200 for the nice ones. Plus, you wouldn't just be buying a heart rate monitor, it would be a feature of the smart watch. In a time where smart watches are clawing at relevance, it only makes sense to include features for athletes and people who work out.
  • 2 Hide
    Pherule , March 19, 2014 11:23 AM
    "storing Internet cache so that the browser isn't burning up the battery charge by downloading pages over and over." - what the hell did I just read?
  • 0 Hide
    matthelm , March 19, 2014 11:40 AM
    I looked at the 6 items, and said, nope, don't need any of them. If pebble would get off their rear and get BLE working on Android, it would be perfect for me. I just want my alerts without getting my phone out and turning it on.
  • 0 Hide
    Haravikk , March 19, 2014 2:13 PM
    I dunno about going too far overboard for a smart watch; the main thing I want from one is long battery life. While installing apps directly on it would be nice, I'd like to see these be as lightweight as possible, offloading tasks to another Android device if paired. I'm also not too fussy about onboard storage being huge, just needs something modest, though a Micro-SD slot wouldn't go amiss if it can be done while keeping the smart-watch water resistant (I like being able to check the time even if it's raining).But yeah; a smart watch needs to be a watch first, it shouldn't require charging every day or be so bogged down with cruft that I can barely use it. While I don't want it to just be an accessory for my phone, the apps need to stay focused on lightweight, quick tasks like getting reminders. Quick answering of calls coming to my phone would be nice. I'm not so sure about requiring WiFi support though, personally I'd be fine with just sharing my phone's connection, and setting up a computer to share its network connection via Bluetooth, then just have a button on my watch that can tell it when to connect, or have it connect automatically to sync every so often. WiFi seems like too big a battery drain for a device that only really needs small amounts of data.
  • 0 Hide
    Kota Smith , March 19, 2014 4:53 PM
    What the f is wrong with these ^ people. "Thats to many features for me." lmao
  • 2 Hide
    10tacle , March 19, 2014 5:14 PM
    Maybe I'm the only one out there not seeing the need for this and being perfectly happy with his smart phone in his pocket at all times. Am I getting old and outdated now?
  • 1 Hide
    thundervore , March 19, 2014 5:25 PM
    So basically these people want their phone on their wrist.Why don't we all just invest in Leela's wristband from Futurama. That's what everyone wants right?
  • -1 Hide
    Onus , March 19, 2014 7:14 PM
    I just want a clock on my wrist. If it counts my steps, or measures my heart rate, without significantly affecting battery life, I'll consider it a bonus. Otherwise, a battery-sucking "smartwatch" is an answer in search of a problem.
  • -1 Hide
    BranFlake5 , March 19, 2014 7:24 PM
    I feel that a smart watch needs 5 basic functions.1. Tell Time, Obviously2. Email/Sms Capability, likely by voice control3. Fitness capability, Include a pedometer, gps and heart meter4. Every function that Google Now Offers5. Style, Connectivity and Battery life also play a part. I want 3 day battery life at least.
  • 1 Hide
    wiad , March 19, 2014 7:38 PM
    This is way too many features. It is a watch. If I want to watch (no pun intended) a video I would just pull out my phone. I don't want my watch replacing my phone! The perfect smartwatch would be simple: weather, notifications (email, text), fitness features, music control and basic watch functionality (stopwatch, tells time). All this while being lightweight, inexpensive and having at least a week of battery life would be amazing.
  • 0 Hide
    WebsWalker , March 19, 2014 10:18 PM
    Quote:
    Quote:
    Because few people will pay $200 for a heart rate monitor. They already exist bud. This is not for that.
    Obviously you are not educated in the heart rate monitor market. Some of those devices go for well over $200 for the nice ones. Plus, you wouldn't just be buying a heart rate monitor, it would be a feature of the smart watch. In a time where smart watches are clawing at relevance, it only makes sense to include features for athletes and people who work out.
    I do own a heart monitor far over 200$ and there is very few chances for me to buy a swmart watch to replace it. The sport devices may seem overpriced (and maybe they are a little) but they are built for sport. My smartphone got corrosion for having spent 30mn in my pocket during exercise. Thus I don't want to try it with a smartwatch.On another hand, I wonder who the well would want to watch video on a watch? what is this article seriously?????you have a phone, you have a tablet, you may have a laptop and you would watch a movie on a less than 3" screen? Seriously stope meth people... Give us a watch with at least a week of battery, ability for call or simple requests (like messaging, running apps...) but avoid the crappy function no one will use more than one time and which will squeeze the battery.If people like this Kevin Parrish continue to write such stupid articles we will see 1080p screen on 2" watch for useless purpose except marketting...
  • 2 Hide
    shriganesh , March 19, 2014 11:14 PM
    The idea of Internet Browser & video playback sounds really funny. No one wants watch a movie or read news in their watch! Unless they want their eyes to get damaged!
  • 0 Hide
    Haravikk , March 20, 2014 2:43 AM
    Quote:
    What the f is wrong with these ^ people. "Thats to many features for me." lmao

    I think you're missing the point; features are fine, but there's usually a cost in complexity, or power consumption, neither of which is a good thing for a smart watch to have. I just want smart watches to stick to being simple devices that can do a few useful things of their own, while hooking into a more powerful device to act as an accessory.

    For example, instead of my watch giving a full-fledged calendar app, it might sync with my calendars then just show me alerts for calendar events; if I want to edit those events I'll then use my phone. Or if the watch can do it, it'll just be very basic (picks a default event name and calendar, and simply lets me set a time).

    Hardware features like WiFi only have marginal benefit to a smart watch IMO, and would be too much of a drain on the battery for what it would add.
  • 0 Hide
    rwinches , March 20, 2014 4:19 AM
    Wow, Apparently there are many here that aren't aware of fitness bands.
    Just stop by your local Best Buy and you will find bins full, like smart watches nobody really wants them either.
    But, if you must have one there many brands to choose from they monitor everything and tell time.
  • 0 Hide
    Onus , March 20, 2014 5:51 AM
    At least a week of battery? Ha, it needs to last for months, if not years, like a watch does today.
    This "device" is a money-grab; one more gadget to be upgraded every year (or more often), requiring some kind of subscription service (or increase to another, like your data plan), and one more "shiny" to keep people distracted from the stuff that really matters.
  • 0 Hide
    tzagasdog , March 20, 2014 10:55 AM
    only standalone and remote control function have any real functionality
Display more comments