Samsung makes good on promise to bring Gear S2, S3, Fit 2 smartwatch compatibility to iOS
After initially announcing iOS support for the Gear S3 in August of 2015, Samsung has published apps for the Gear S2, Gear S3, and Gear Fit2 on the iOS App Store, making them compatible with the iPhone.
Users can download the Samsung Gear S app for the Gear S2 and Gear S3 or the Samsung Gear Fit app for the Gear Fit2. Once the appropriate app is downloaded, Samsung smartwatch owners will be guided through steps to complete pairing the watch, with the user's iPhone.
The Gear S3 smartwatch family is powered by a dual-core 1.0 GHz processor driving a 1.3-inch circular 278 ppi AMOLED display, with 4 GB of storage, and 768 MB of application RAM. Connectivity is provided by Bluetooth 4.2, 802.11n wi-fi, and NFC.
The Gear S3 is large at 12.9mm thick, and either weighs 57g or 62g depending on model. For comparison, the Apple Watch 42mm model is 10.5mm thick and weighs 50g.
Samsung announced Gear S2 compatibility for the Gear S2 in January 2016.
The Samsung Gear S app is a 61.7MB download, and requires iOS 9 or later. The Samsung Gear Fit app for the newer devices is 59MB, and also requires iOS 9.
Users can download the Samsung Gear S app for the Gear S2 and Gear S3 or the Samsung Gear Fit app for the Gear Fit2. Once the appropriate app is downloaded, Samsung smartwatch owners will be guided through steps to complete pairing the watch, with the user's iPhone.
The Gear S3 smartwatch family is powered by a dual-core 1.0 GHz processor driving a 1.3-inch circular 278 ppi AMOLED display, with 4 GB of storage, and 768 MB of application RAM. Connectivity is provided by Bluetooth 4.2, 802.11n wi-fi, and NFC.
The Gear S3 is large at 12.9mm thick, and either weighs 57g or 62g depending on model. For comparison, the Apple Watch 42mm model is 10.5mm thick and weighs 50g.
Samsung announced Gear S2 compatibility for the Gear S2 in January 2016.
The Samsung Gear S app is a 61.7MB download, and requires iOS 9 or later. The Samsung Gear Fit app for the newer devices is 59MB, and also requires iOS 9.
Comments
So it's not surprising that the S3 looks similar to hundreds of other mechanical watches with its pseudo-mech face. A smartwatch in mech-watch's clothing.
I like the look of the Frontier and wish Apple would do something similar. Likely won't happen, or at least not for a long time, but as useful as a smartwatch is, I miss the look of a good-looking analog watch, and a round one at that.
How does its data plan work— like typical phone plan or that of an iPad (month-to month)? Can you order up data and a phone plan OTA on the S3?
I like choice and competition. I'm not surprised at the criticism here of the S3, but am surprised that six posts in and nobody's made a 'blowing off your hand' or similar 'joke'.
- For instance, just Google "rectangular watches", then select "images", and you will see over 100 examples of these kinds of traditional watches.
- An Apple Watch can look like a traditional watch. Take a stainless steel / silver AW, attach it to a decent steel / leather watch band, use a traditional watch face and it will almost pass as a traditional watch. (The only limit being that the screen is not always on but the look is still pretty close to known mechanical watches imo.)
Glad they got the app out finally, it works great. A couple features missing from the Android version (I'm sure Apple has something to do with that). Not to mention, I'm sure Apple dragged their feet on the review so it came out AFTER Xmas. Next step will be to get the Galaxy S8 and ditch my iPhone. Finally seeing the light, escaping out from Apple's "walled garden".
2) No, the primary purpose of a smartwatch isn't just to tell time. It's a computer so time is what it does at its core. The reason that watches stopped being as popular is because the cellphone had a clock on it. Even AirPods are more accurate with time than any of the "fine mechanical Swiss watches" made of gold and encrusted with diamonds that you may wish own one day.
Just for completeness of discussion, these Apple Watch specs are marketing specs; according to the Apple band design guidelines, the 42mm Apple Watch is 12.48mm thick, bezel to base of the sensor cover. Also, there are different 42mm Apple Watch models, and the 42mm black stainless Apple Watch case for instance weighs 52.4g.
From my perspective, I tried the Gear S3 on over holiday, and found it actually appears smaller on my wrist than the Apple Watch 42mm. I also really appreciated the rotating bezel more than the Digital Crown. I also think it's a really good-looking watch in person, with some nice watch face choices. While I didn't personally care for it, there were some brushed stainless skuomorphic faces where the light virtually shifted with the perspective like a real watch which was actually pretty cool and very well done.
Of course, it doesn't do me much good without Apple Pay and I'm not interested in using Android Pay. The clerk also lost points with me by disparaging the iPhone when he found out I was using one, and preferred it to Android options.
And that's the difference between you and me. I'm not really interested in wearing a "computer" on my wrist. I'm interested in what a computer can do for me with the devices I chose to adorn myself with, and agree with Jony Ive that the Apple Watch was designed for brief glances, and anything more a customer should pull out their iPhone. A round or square display will handle "glances" equally efficiently. In fact currently many round offerings offer an even larger display than the Apple Watch to present them. So at the end of the day, I'm most interested in what looks best on my wrist, not what will best take the place of my iPhone.
However, when the Apple Watch eventually gets LTE and a camera, and a larger display, I'll be more interested in it as an iPhone replacement. But there will still be use case scenarios -- one in which I do need to use the watch for more than glances, and need a full scale replacement for my phone: surfing while I'm on call at the office; and another when all I need are glances: formal events, at the office, parties. I'll most likely have two watches at that time, depending on how Apple handles this. Because like it or not, fashion is a multi billion dollar worldwide business, in no small part because many people do care what they wear.
Wasn't everyone clamoring for an end to that practice in touch screen UIs?
Most of our history with timepieces are with round displays so it's natural that we see them as being more organic and appealing. The iPhone had the same issues actual functionality when it had no physical keyboard, but these people looking first at the aesthetic quality are simply missing the point.
I'm sure Apple also had the rotating bezel on a round display idea, which I base on this having already existing and pretty everyone had already thought of for a smartwatch long before Samsung did it. It's a functional use of a bezel, but it still results with a dead-end design because the reason for a wrist-worn device with an interactive display so that you can interact with it. A round display equates to a cul-de-sac when you're trying to get on a motorway.
Even with this move into the smart, wrist-worn device era, the wrist and forearm is still very much unused space. I foresee the future pushing into later devices with much wider screens.
A lot of early watches were simply pocket watches with a very slight redesign.
But, square and rectangle watches actually were quite popular from 1919 when the first watches to the mid 1930s. At that time, the watch was a luxury item for the rich.
Makes sense since the bracelet has been in existence for ages on the wrist as luxury items and links are squarish.
It's when the army started distributing them to first its aviators, and then during the war to officers, that the watch, the cheaper mass produced design favored by the US military, entered the mass market. Round watches, which had had this large scale diffusion, were seen as the standard watch, a symbol of virile successful manhood, essentially through this marketing.
That's why the square watch mostly survived in women's watch were the military/virile marketing argument held less sway and the original, decorative argument was just as important.