Hands-On: Sony SmartWatch 3

Image: Sony

Sony recently offered Tom's Hardware the chance to check out the latest model in the company's SmartWatch portfolio. Unlike the former model, the new SmartWatch 3 comes packed with Android Wear, Google's smart device operating system that launched just a few short months ago. Is that a bad thing or a good thing? That's what we are here to find out.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Kevin Parrish
Contributor

Kevin Parrish has over a decade of experience as a writer, editor, and product tester. His work focused on computer hardware, networking equipment, smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles, and other internet-connected devices. His work has appeared in Tom's Hardware, Tom's Guide, Maximum PC, Digital Trends, Android Authority, How-To Geek, Lifewire, and others.

  • myriad46
    Far more objective an assessment of Android Wear than this (http://www.tomsguide.com/us/android-wear-too-skimpy,news-20048.html)

    Your last statement is curious to me. I don't think the smartwatch is supposed to replace our smart phone. I suppose it may someday, but this generation is meant to be more than a gimmick as an enhancement of a smartphone, in my opinion. Nice article.
    Reply
  • clonazepam
    I just picture a couple having an argument, and one of them nodding their head to look down and swiping their wristwatch repeatedly to dismiss all kinds of notifications. The other thinks they are winning. ;-)

    Your major complaint wasn't illustrated in a photo.
    Reply
  • sadsteve
    "Smartwatches are somewhat of a gimmick until they're capable of replacing your smartphone, but Sony's SmartWatch 3 is a bold step in that direction. "

    With the growing screen sizes for smart phones, why would anyone think a smart watch with a 1.6 inch screen would ever be a capable replacement for a smart phone? I would view it kind of like how I view tablet vs desktops. The tablet gives me good mobility but imposes other limitations (lot less power CPU, much smaller screen, etc). There's the same kind of trade offs associated with the smart watch vs smart phone. Plus, those smart watches pictured above are pretty ugly! :)
    Reply
  • Onus
    Two days of battery life? On a wristwatch? Pffft. Let me know when it is at least a month; three or more would be a LOT better.
    Reply
  • SylentVyper
    I still don't understand the need to put a damn quad-core 1.2GHz chip into a smartwatch. That is insanity. The #1 complaint - by far - about smartwatches is battery life. Why not throw in a single core? There is nothing you'd be doing on something like this that would require 4 cores...
    Reply
  • whiteodian
    Battery-life and water resistance are two important things for me. 2 days is not long and I'm sure real-world use will get more like 1-1.5 days so pretty much every night it goes on the charger. No mention of waterproofedness in this article. I like the idea of an e-ink display. The Pebble seems to be a winner.
    Reply
  • Onus
    A two-week battery life might be acceptable if it comes with a NFC charging pad; you just set it down and it charges. Finnagling with a tiny connector which seems like an obvious point of failure, every day, is not a reasonable option. Not being able to last through a week long business trip (or vacation) without charging is a dealbreaker.
    Reply
  • davidhunt
    Phone is still far more important than watches.
    Reply