Compelling is the key word. As previously noted, that product not only didn't sell well, but they stopped making the product line. The G2 you're showing is simply a newer release of an entirely new product line that is still uncompelling.
Nowhere was it mentioned that the evolution of technology would forever prevent cellular chips from being a compelling feature in a wrist-worn device. At some point, that will very likely happen, but today is not that day. There are just too many downsized and not enough upsides for anything other than a very niche segment of an already low-volume market, but you'd have to get your head out of your ass to notice.
Yet you claim, despite this, and the updated photos I included of the 2016 model in my edited post, that Samsung has not been pushing that market since that Samsung model you posted your trolling photo of, which was released in 1999!
So twist it however you want, your intent was clearly to troll, and your claims were patently false.
If you can't see the benefits of incorporating a cellular radio into a watch, then it's not me that needs to get his head out of his "ass", especially since I don't have to troll and post lies to do it.
I said it's not compelling. Even in 2016, it's not compelling, which is why most people have never ever heard the specs on this Gear S2 or NumberSync. There is a time and place that makes a compelling product revolutionize an industry, and this always means making tough choices about what not to include. Looking only at the thickness from added the requisite cellular HW—and not even looking at power usage for the cellular radios—it's clearly not time... but deep down where some level of objectivity resides, you know that this will never be compelling product as is.
But back to the point, putting cellular into a wrist-worn device is not a compelling reason to make a watch in and of itself. Period.
Neither GPS or cellular in the Watch have any appeal to me. As long as their presence in no way impinges on battery life, I'd be ok with that. But I'd want to see better battery life before those features were added.
Using both of them as an emergency beacon is an interesting idea, especially if it sends out long/lat as well. But the main deterrent for me is an additional data/phone plan. A data plan similar to that offered by att and others for the iPad would be doable. Buy some data for the month, no recurring charges.
As for using it as a phone, probably not. It's been very handy for getting and making calls, then moving to the phone, but not convenient for actually having a conversation. I've done maybe three or four though, knowing that the calls would take less time than it would have to get my phone and take the call. But that's a rarity.
If these two features make others happy and don't hurt battery life, I'm in.
1) I hope battery life is improved dramatically, but I can't say that it's been an actual issue with the current model. I've gone several days on backpacking trip in Airplane Mode without charging, and I can already go 1.5–2 days between charges, which I only know because I've forgotten to charge overnight on occasion. That said, I'd like to have more peace of mind, even if it's mostly a perceived shortcoming, before adding more power hungry HW.
2) GPS on the Watch could work by pulling A-GPS data quickly from WiFi and cellular on the iPhone, and then staying synced once it's established a connection with at least 4 satellites. I'd like that for better distance and elevation data, that latter of which wasn't an option with my iPhone off and my atch in AirPlane Mode whilst backpacking. Additionally, watchOS didn't understand the level of exercise involved as a result of the starting elevation and steps climbed, even without knowing the terrain or how much weight I was carrying on my back.
3) I'm not expecting a GPS-out on the Watch. While it would be another nice way to call for help—adding to the SOS feature of watchOS 3.0—all the tech I've seen is far too large for this to be feasible, and the battery would be too small that the signal back to satellites for emergency services wouldn't be able to ping enough time before it would die.
4) When they finally add cellular I hope they allow for piggybacking your iPhone number, like with AT&T's NumberSync, instead of giving out a second phone number, and making it a low additional device cost that would use your minutes (data) from your primary account. I would also like for there to be NO physical SIM card when this is finally feasible to put in Watch.
Would be cool if there could be intelligence between the iPhone and Watch so that any GPS and cell connectivity in the Watch would be deactivated until it was out of range of the iPhone, at which point the iPhone cell connection gets deacrtivated and the Watch becomes the primary device, with phone and data connectivity for when you leave your phone behind. Potential then (with a lot of carrier negotiation) to only have one plan, as only one cell connection is active at one time.
Yet you claim, despite this, and the updated photos I included of the 2016 model in my edited post, that Samsung has not been pushing that market since that Samsung model you posted your trolling photo of, which was released in 1999!
So twist it however you want, your intent was clearly to troll, and your claims were patently false.
If you can't see the benefits of incorporating a cellular radio into a watch, then it's not me that needs to get his head out of his "ass", especially since I don't have to troll and post lies to do it.
I said it's not compelling. Even in 2016, it's not compelling, which is why most people have never ever heard the specs on this Gear S2 or NumberSync. There is a time and place that makes a compelling product revolutionize an industry, and this always means making tough choices about what not to include. Looking only at the thickness from added the requisite cellular HW—and not even looking at power usage for the cellular radios—it's clearly not time... but deep down where some level of objectivity resides, you know that this will never be compelling product as is.
But back to the point, putting cellular into a wrist-worn device is not a compelling reason to make a watch in and of itself. Period.
Well for starters this is your exact quote: "This Samsung smartwatch had a cellular radio but didn't provide a compelling reason for enough buyers for Samsung to keep pushing that market." Now I've pointed out that Samsung clearly continued pushing cellular radios in their wearables. But fine, you're moving the goalposts.
So you're now debating whether or not cellular technology in a watch is compelling based on how thick the watch must be to accommodate it? And you're showing the Gear S2 (BT) compared to the Gear S2 3G as the deterrent? Why don't we look at the specs compared to other watches before we just take your opinion, specious though it may be, as the final word:
So not only does the Gear S2 3G add a cellular radio, it also adds a speaker. Considering that the depth is less than 1mm thicker than the equivalent sized Watch, I'd say the speaker adds more to the difference in size to the non-3G Gear S2 than the 3G/4G chip. Not only that, it's still in line with the thickness of comparable standard watch thicknesses, only .4mm thicker than the widely popular Rolex Submariner. So again your argument is intellectually dishonest. And your biased opinion on the matter does not make it a fact. "Period" (to use your parlance).
There are plenty of ways that cellular technology in a watch can be useful to the average person, without it being a full-blown phone. For starters, being able to use the SOS feature anywhere there's cellular coverage, rather than tying it to the phone or wi-fi -- especially since Apple would seem to be adding GPS in order to use the watch away from the phone, which increases the likelihood that someone might need emergency services when separated from their phone. So there's that. And to think the Gear S2 3G manages to add that arguably essential capability with less than 1mm added to the thickness of the Watch, while providing most if not all of the other features. That might not be compelling to you, but I assure you it's likely a compelling feature to some. Unless you've got a study somewhere you're pulling the facts to base your opinions on, it's debatable just how many may find this one feature compelling, and definitely not worth offering up as "evidence" to support your position otherwise.
I said it's not compelling. Even in 2016, it's not compelling, which is why most people have never ever heard the specs on this Gear S2 or NumberSync. There is a time and place that makes a compelling product revolutionize an industry, and this always means making tough choices about what not to include. Looking only at the thickness from added the requisite cellular HW—and not even looking at power usage for the cellular radios—it's clearly not time... but deep down where some level of objectivity resides, you know that this will never be compelling product as is.
But back to the point, putting cellular into a wrist-worn device is not a compelling reason to make a watch in and of itself. Period.
Well for starters this is your exact quote: "This Samsung smartwatch had a cellular radio but didn't provide a compelling reason for enough buyers for Samsung to keep pushing that market." Now I've pointed out that Samsung clearly continued pushing cellular radios in their wearables. But fine, you're moving the goalposts.
So you're now debating whether or not cellular technology in a watch is compelling based on how thick the watch must be to accommodate it? And you're showing the Gear S2 (BT) compared to the Gear S2 3G as the deterrent? Why don't we look at the specs compared to other watches before we just take your opinion, specious though it may be, as the final word:
So not only does the Gear S2 3G add a cellular radio, it also adds a speaker. Considering that the depth is less than 1mm thicker than the equivalent sized Watch, I'd say the speaker adds more to the difference in size to the non-3G Gear S2 than the the 3G/4G chip. So again your argument is intellectually dishonest. And your biased opinion on the matter does not make it a fact. "Period" (to use your parlance).
There are plenty of ways that cellular technology in a watch can be useful to the average person, without it being a full-blown phone. For starters, being able to use the SOS feature anywhere there's cellular coverage, rather than tying it to the phone or wi-fi -- especially since Apple would seem to be adding GPS in order to use the watch away from the phone, which increases the likelihood that someone might need emergency services when separated from their phone. So there's that. And to think the Gear S2 3G manages to add that arguably essential capability with less than 1mm added to the thickness of the Watch, while providing most if not all of the other features. ostentatious ut I assure you it's a compelling feature to some. Unless you've got a study somewhere you're pulling the facts to base your opinions on, it's debatable just how many may find this one feature compelling, and definitely not worth offering up as "evidence" to support your position.
1) Yes, Samsung put a dumb phone on a watch and it was a failed product. They've tried again, and it's failed agin. They are trying again, now, and it'll fail, because the market isn't ready.
2) Yes, the thickness, volume, and weight on your wrist, combined with usability and utility, which includes not how you would use the device, but also how long it can be used between charging, makes or breaks whether a product will be a success in the market.
3) I'm not going to verify your examples, but even in your slanted list you show that cellular HW adds 2mm to the Gear S2, that the Apple Watch is considerably thinner, and that even the ostentatious and shoddy Rolex Submariner is thinner than the Gear S2 with cellular HW.
4) Again, this will get there, but it's either not the time, or Samsung doesn't have the chops to pull it off this year. Even if was in the Apple Watch thickness range, that measure alone wouldn't make any difference unless the utility aspect was properly accounted for. This is why people look to Apple over Samsung for tech trends; you keep thinking that being the first to put cellular radio into a cellphone where they bolted on a strap to make it wrist-wearable makes them innovators, while ignoring the effort that goes in to denying features until the technology is ready to make it a market success.
5) So you want the SOS feature to work with cellular. Great, but you say that it can do that without being a "full blown phone." How exactly would it not being a phone if by pressing and holding the contacts button doesn't dial an emergency services (or personal) number that allows you have a 2-way audio conversation? It what way is that only partially how a phone call works?
6) Your own list shows the Gear S2 v Gear S2 w/shitty cellular has a difference of 2mm, yet you claim in your last paragraph that it would only "add less than 1 mm" to the thickness of the Apple Watch. Care to explain what would be removed from the current Apple Watch to make that happen? What do you think isn't needed so that a poorly executed attempt at cellular in the Apple Watch could be had in 2016?
7) As previously stated, cellular is certainly compelling to me, and I've even detailed how I would use the technology and some of the advancements in cellular HW I'd like to see incorporated, when it's finally ready for a marketable wrist-worn device; buy, hey, you can choose to ignore that simply because I correctly pointed out that Samsung likes to jump the gun so they can claim "first!".
Well for starters this is your exact quote: "This Samsung smartwatch had a cellular radio but didn't provide a compelling reason for enough buyers for Samsung to keep pushing that market." Now I've pointed out that Samsung clearly continued pushing cellular radios in their wearables. But fine, you're moving the goalposts.
So you're now debating whether or not cellular technology in a watch is compelling based on how thick the watch must be to accommodate it? And you're showing the Gear S2 (BT) compared to the Gear S2 3G as the deterrent? Why don't we look at the specs compared to other watches before we just take your opinion, specious though it may be, as the final word:
So not only does the Gear S2 3G add a cellular radio, it also adds a speaker. Considering that the depth is less than 1mm thicker than the equivalent sized Watch, I'd say the speaker adds more to the difference in size to the non-3G Gear S2 than the the 3G/4G chip. So again your argument is intellectually dishonest. And your biased opinion on the matter does not make it a fact. "Period" (to use your parlance).
There are plenty of ways that cellular technology in a watch can be useful to the average person, without it being a full-blown phone. For starters, being able to use the SOS feature anywhere there's cellular coverage, rather than tying it to the phone or wi-fi -- especially since Apple would seem to be adding GPS in order to use the watch away from the phone, which increases the likelihood that someone might need emergency services when separated from their phone. So there's that. And to think the Gear S2 3G manages to add that arguably essential capability with less than 1mm added to the thickness of the Watch, while providing most if not all of the other features. ostentatious ut I assure you it's a compelling feature to some. Unless you've got a study somewhere you're pulling the facts to base your opinions on, it's debatable just how many may find this one feature compelling, and definitely not worth offering up as "evidence" to support your position.
1) Yes, Samsung put a dumb phone on a watch and it was a failed product. They've tried again, and it's failed agin. They are trying again, now, and it'll fail, because the market isn't ready.
2) Yes, the thickness, volume, and weight on your wrist, combined with usability and utility, which includes not how you would use the device, but also how long it can be used between charging, makes or breaks whether a product will be a success in the market.
3) I'm not going to verify your examples, but even in your slanted list you show that cellular HW adds 2mm to the Gear S2, that the Apple Watch is considerably thinner, and that even the ostentatious and shoddy Rolex Submariner is thinner than the Gear S2 with cellular HW.
4) Again, this will get there, but it's either not the time, or Samsung doesn't have the chops to pull it off this year. Even if was in the Apple Watch thickness range, that measure alone wouldn't make any difference unless the utility aspect was properly accounted for. This is why people look to Apple over Samsung for tech trends; you keep thinking that being the first to put cellular radio into a cellphone where they bolted on a strap to make it wrist-wearable makes them innovators, while ignoring the effort that goes in to denying features until the technology is ready to make it a market success.
5) So you want the SOS feature to work with cellular. Great, but you say that it can do that without being a "full blown phone." How exactly would it not being a phone if by pressing and holding the contacts button doesn't dial an emergency services (or personal) number that allows you have a 2-way audio conversation? It what way is that only partially how a phone call works?
6) Your own list shows the Gear S2 v Gear S2 w/shitty cellular has a difference of 2mm, yet you claim in your last paragraph that it would only "add less than 1 mm" to the thickness of the Apple Watch. Care to explain what would be removed from the current Apple Watch to make that happen? What do you think isn't needed so that a poorly executed attempt at cellular in the Apple Watch could be had in 2016?
7) As previously stated, cellular is certainly compelling to me, and I've even detailed how I would use the technology and some of the advancements in cellular HW I'd like to see incorporated, when it's finally ready for a marketable wrist-worn device; buy, hey, you can choose to ignore that simply because I correctly pointed out that Samsung likes to jump the gun so they can claim "first!".
To sum up your rebuttal to my points -- a potential 1mm increase in tickness over the current Watch isn't worth adding the benefit of a cellular safetynet to the next Watch when used away from the iPhone. And everyone else should agree with you. Got it. No need to continue debating with you.
1) Yes, Samsung put a dumb phone on a watch and it was a failed product. They've tried again, and it's failed agin. They are trying again, now, and it'll fail, because the market isn't ready.
2) Yes, the thickness, volume, and weight on your wrist, combined with usability and utility, which includes not how you would use the device, but also how long it can be used between charging, makes or breaks whether a product will be a success in the market.
3) I'm not going to verify your examples, but even in your slanted list you show that cellular HW adds 2mm to the Gear S2, that the Apple Watch is considerably thinner, and that even the ostentatious and shoddy Rolex Submariner is thinner than the Gear S2 with cellular HW.
4) Again, this will get there, but it's either not the time, or Samsung doesn't have the chops to pull it off this year. Even if was in the Apple Watch thickness range, that measure alone wouldn't make any difference unless the utility aspect was properly accounted for. This is why people look to Apple over Samsung for tech trends; you keep thinking that being the first to put cellular radio into a cellphone where they bolted on a strap to make it wrist-wearable makes them innovators, while ignoring the effort that goes in to denying features until the technology is ready to make it a market success.
5) So you want the SOS feature to work with cellular. Great, but you say that it can do that without being a "full blown phone." How exactly would it not being a phone if by pressing and holding the contacts button doesn't dial an emergency services (or personal) number that allows you have a 2-way audio conversation? It what way is that only partially how a phone call works?
6) Your own list shows the Gear S2 v Gear S2 w/shitty cellular has a difference of 2mm, yet you claim in your last paragraph that it would only "add less than 1 mm" to the thickness of the Apple Watch. Care to explain what would be removed from the current Apple Watch to make that happen? What do you think isn't needed so that a poorly executed attempt at cellular in the Apple Watch could be had in 2016?
7) As previously stated, cellular is certainly compelling to me, and I've even detailed how I would use the technology and some of the advancements in cellular HW I'd like to see incorporated, when it's finally ready for a marketable wrist-worn device; buy, hey, you can choose to ignore that simply because I correctly pointed out that Samsung likes to jump the gun so they can claim "first!".
To sum up your rebuttal to my points -- a potential 1mm increase in tickness over the current Watch isn't worth adding the benefit of a cellular safetynet to the next Watch when used away from the iPhone. And everyone else should agree with you. Got it. No need to continue debating with you.
1) How did you Apple engineers to get it to 1mm when Samsung, with all their attempts, require a 2mm difference? What did you remove from the current iPhone? What do you think isn't necessary in the current iPhone? The haptic engine? The build quality? The easily removable watch bands?
2) Is this scenario of yours how long does the battery last? What kind of range does it get? Does the micro-SIM affect the water-resistance of the device? What is the monthly cost the carriers? Will there be a different model for all these different carriers even over the current 50-ish SKUs they have now just for the watches, not including their after-market bands? What kind of data speeds will it get? Does this mean all the setup can be done without ever pairing with an iPhone?
3) You say cellular is a safetynet[sic], without mentioning GPS? If we're really talking about safety, then GPS out would allow for emergency services to find you, even if you were in the wilderness where cellphones towers typically aren't. But let's be honest, you don't give two shits about safety, you just thought that it would make your facile anti-Apple argument sound better if you sounded like you were "concerned" for Apple customers when you lambasted the Watch for not following Samsung's throw shit at the wall and see what sticks strategy guide.
To sum up your rebuttal to my points -- a potential 1mm increase in tickness over the current Watch isn't worth adding the benefit of a cellular safetynet to the next Watch when used away from the iPhone. And everyone else should agree with you. Got it. No need to continue debating with you.
1) How did you Apple engineers to get it to 1mm when Samsung, with all their attempts, require a 2mm difference? What did you remove from the current iPhone? What do you think isn't necessary in the current iPhone? The haptic engine? The build quality? The easily removable watch bands?
2) Is this scenario of yours how long does the battery last? What kind of range does it get? Does the micro-SIM affect the water-resistance of the device? What is the monthly cost the carriers? Will there be a different model for all these different carriers even over the current 50-ish SKUs they have now just for the watches, not including their after-market bands? What kind of data speeds will it get? Does this mean all the setup can be done without ever pairing with an iPhone?
3) You say cellular is a safetynet[sic], without mentioning GPS? If we're really talking about safety, then GPS out would allow for emergency services to find you, even if you were in the wilderness where cellphones towers typically aren't. But let's be honest, you don't give two shits about safety, you just thought that it would make your facile anti-Apple argument sound better if you sounded like you were "concerned" for Apple customers when you lambasted the Watch for not following Samsung's throw shit at the wall and see what sticks strategy guide.
Anti-Apple argument? The rumor is that Apple wanted to add cellular, but couldn't make it work at present with their other priorities. Your argument is seemingly that they shouldn't even try because Samsung has failed, and there's no compelling application, and therefore nobody wants it. Mine is simply that your arguments don't have any merit, and are strictly opinion. You're really going out on limb, without any facts, and it's turning into a profanity-laced rant simply because I disagree with you. So like I said, no need to continue.
1) How did you Apple engineers to get it to 1mm when Samsung, with all their attempts, require a 2mm difference? What did you remove from the current iPhone? What do you think isn't necessary in the current iPhone? The haptic engine? The build quality? The easily removable watch bands?
2) Is this scenario of yours how long does the battery last? What kind of range does it get? Does the micro-SIM affect the water-resistance of the device? What is the monthly cost the carriers? Will there be a different model for all these different carriers even over the current 50-ish SKUs they have now just for the watches, not including their after-market bands? What kind of data speeds will it get? Does this mean all the setup can be done without ever pairing with an iPhone?
3) You say cellular is a safetynet[sic], without mentioning GPS? If we're really talking about safety, then GPS out would allow for emergency services to find you, even if you were in the wilderness where cellphones towers typically aren't. But let's be honest, you don't give two shits about safety, you just thought that it would make your facile anti-Apple argument sound better if you sounded like you were "concerned" for Apple customers when you lambasted the Watch for not following Samsung's throw shit at the wall and see what sticks strategy guide.
Your argument is seemingly that they shouldn't even try because Samsung has failed
You really need to learn to read better. I said that you shouldn't be "first!" for the sake of being "first!". That it's OK to not release a shitty product or add features just because you spent the money on engineering and have no clear vision of the product or the market. Apple will add new features, and Samsung will follow suit with the same features done in a compelling way, even though they've tried before—and failed—when trying to be "first!". Case in point, biometrics in CE.
why would you need a cell radio on a Watch? just silly.
I wonder if Apple can make special bands that have GPS and an extra battery? Most of us don't give a crap about GPS. But I know runners do
because you know that it can take up to 15 to 20 minutes for the GPS chip to get sync to the satellites. Today phones use the cellular and known wifi networks to get a location until the GPS is online. Plus GPS when searching for the signal uses lots of power, That is why it make sense to have cellular and GPS together.
1) Sure, there is a benefit to cellular + A-GPS, just as there are benefits to all sorts of HW pairings, but you know that it doesn't seem feasible at this point.
2) I see no technical reason why the Watch can't request A-GPS data from the iPhone via BT or grab it itself via certain WiFi hotspots (which are connected directly to the watch) to get info that allow GPS in the Watch to connect faster. It would offer a feature set that isn't already there, but I'm still considered with 18 months since the Apple Watch announcement, that even GPS is feasible. I can go many days without charging when backpacking by putting the Watch in AirPlane mode, but with GPS, I'd be less inclined to want to do that.
This is because you do not understand how GPS works, the phone can not pass the GPS signal on the actually coordinated. Plus it defeats the purpose of having the GPS in the watch it self, the idea is so the watch does not need to be tether to the phone. I personally backpack with a number of different GPS receiver and they are all power hogs. I would turning them on to get a location and then back off again so not to run out of power. But to be honest, I rather have a topo map, it gives me a much better idea of where I am and I can look at the map and look at my surrounding and quickly have an idea of my location. I personal never really like navigating with a GPS while camping. I use to GeoCache, this was at the time where GPS receiver got you within about 100 feet, but I usually could get there with a map and compass just as well.
1) Sure, there is a benefit to cellular + A-GPS, just as there are benefits to all sorts of HW pairings, but you know that it doesn't seem feasible at this point.
2) I see no technical reason why the Watch can't request A-GPS data from the iPhone via BT or grab it itself via certain WiFi hotspots (which are connected directly to the watch) to get info that allow GPS in the Watch to connect faster. It would offer a feature set that isn't already there, but I'm still considered with 18 months since the Apple Watch announcement, that even GPS is feasible. I can go many days without charging when backpacking by putting the Watch in AirPlane mode, but with GPS, I'd be less inclined to want to do that.
This is because you do not understand how GPS works, the phone can not pass the GPS signal on the actually coordinated. Plus it defeats the purpose of having the GPS in the watch it self, the idea is so the watch does not need to be tether to the phone. I personally backpack with a number of different GPS receiver and they are all power hogs. I would turning them on to get a location and then back off again so not to run out of power. But to be honest, I rather have a topo map, it gives me a much better idea of where I am and I can look at the map and look at my surrounding and quickly have an idea of my location. I personal never really like navigating with a GPS while camping. I use to GeoCache, this was at the time where GPS receiver got you within about 100 feet, but I usually could get there with a map and compass just as well.
1) Look up A-GPS and TTFF, then explain to me why the data that a cellphone receives from terrestrial radio can't be passed to Watch.
2) No, receiving A-GPS from an iPhone defeats the purpose of having GPS in Watch about as much as having settings for watchOS accessible in the Watch app on the iPhone.
Comments
But back to the point, putting cellular into a wrist-worn device is not a compelling reason to make a watch in and of itself. Period.
2) GPS on the Watch could work by pulling A-GPS data quickly from WiFi and cellular on the iPhone, and then staying synced once it's established a connection with at least 4 satellites. I'd like that for better distance and elevation data, that latter of which wasn't an option with my iPhone off and my atch in AirPlane Mode whilst backpacking. Additionally, watchOS didn't understand the level of exercise involved as a result of the starting elevation and steps climbed, even without knowing the terrain or how much weight I was carrying on my back.
3) I'm not expecting a GPS-out on the Watch. While it would be another nice way to call for help—adding to the SOS feature of watchOS 3.0—all the tech I've seen is far too large for this to be feasible, and the battery would be too small that the signal back to satellites for emergency services wouldn't be able to ping enough time before it would die.
4) When they finally add cellular I hope they allow for piggybacking your iPhone number, like with AT&T's NumberSync, instead of giving out a second phone number, and making it a low additional device cost that would use your minutes (data) from your primary account. I would also like for there to be NO physical SIM card when this is finally feasible to put in Watch.
Well for starters this is your exact quote: "This Samsung smartwatch had a cellular radio but didn't provide a compelling reason for enough buyers for Samsung to keep pushing that market." Now I've pointed out that Samsung clearly continued pushing cellular radios in their wearables. But fine, you're moving the goalposts.
So you're now debating whether or not cellular technology in a watch is compelling based on how thick the watch must be to accommodate it? And you're showing the Gear S2 (BT) compared to the Gear S2 3G as the deterrent? Why don't we look at the specs compared to other watches before we just take your opinion, specious though it may be, as the final word:
GS2 BT - 11.4mm thick (no speaker)
Rolex Datejust - 11.7mm thick
Watch 38 - 12.2mm thick (speaker))
Watch 42 - 12.46mm thick (speaker)
Rolex Submariner - 13mm thick
GS2 3G - 13.4mm thick (speaker and 3G/4G)
So not only does the Gear S2 3G add a cellular radio, it also adds a speaker. Considering that the depth is less than 1mm thicker than the equivalent sized Watch, I'd say the speaker adds more to the difference in size to the non-3G Gear S2 than the 3G/4G chip. Not only that, it's still in line with the thickness of comparable standard watch thicknesses, only .4mm thicker than the widely popular Rolex Submariner. So again your argument is intellectually dishonest. And your biased opinion on the matter does not make it a fact. "Period" (to use your parlance).
There are plenty of ways that cellular technology in a watch can be useful to the average person, without it being a full-blown phone. For starters, being able to use the SOS feature anywhere there's cellular coverage, rather than tying it to the phone or wi-fi -- especially since Apple would seem to be adding GPS in order to use the watch away from the phone, which increases the likelihood that someone might need emergency services when separated from their phone. So there's that. And to think the Gear S2 3G manages to add that arguably essential capability with less than 1mm added to the thickness of the Watch, while providing most if not all of the other features. That might not be compelling to you, but I assure you it's likely a compelling feature to some. Unless you've got a study somewhere you're pulling the facts to base your opinions on, it's debatable just how many may find this one feature compelling, and definitely not worth offering up as "evidence" to support your position otherwise.
2) Yes, the thickness, volume, and weight on your wrist, combined with usability and utility, which includes not how you would use the device, but also how long it can be used between charging, makes or breaks whether a product will be a success in the market.
3) I'm not going to verify your examples, but even in your slanted list you show that cellular HW adds 2mm to the Gear S2, that the Apple Watch is considerably thinner, and that even the ostentatious and shoddy Rolex Submariner is thinner than the Gear S2 with cellular HW.
4) Again, this will get there, but it's either not the time, or Samsung doesn't have the chops to pull it off this year. Even if was in the Apple Watch thickness range, that measure alone wouldn't make any difference unless the utility aspect was properly accounted for. This is why people look to Apple over Samsung for tech trends; you keep thinking that being the first to put cellular radio into a cellphone where they bolted on a strap to make it wrist-wearable makes them innovators, while ignoring the effort that goes in to denying features until the technology is ready to make it a market success.
5) So you want the SOS feature to work with cellular. Great, but you say that it can do that without being a "full blown phone." How exactly would it not being a phone if by pressing and holding the contacts button doesn't dial an emergency services (or personal) number that allows you have a 2-way audio conversation? It what way is that only partially how a phone call works?
6) Your own list shows the Gear S2 v Gear S2 w/shitty cellular has a difference of 2mm, yet you claim in your last paragraph that it would only "add less than 1 mm" to the thickness of the Apple Watch. Care to explain what would be removed from the current Apple Watch to make that happen? What do you think isn't needed so that a poorly executed attempt at cellular in the Apple Watch could be had in 2016?
7) As previously stated, cellular is certainly compelling to me, and I've even detailed how I would use the technology and some of the advancements in cellular HW I'd like to see incorporated, when it's finally ready for a marketable wrist-worn device; buy, hey, you can choose to ignore that simply because I correctly pointed out that Samsung likes to jump the gun so they can claim "first!".
2) Is this scenario of yours how long does the battery last? What kind of range does it get? Does the micro-SIM affect the water-resistance of the device? What is the monthly cost the carriers? Will there be a different model for all these different carriers even over the current 50-ish SKUs they have now just for the watches, not including their after-market bands? What kind of data speeds will it get? Does this mean all the setup can be done without ever pairing with an iPhone?
3) You say cellular is a safetynet[sic], without mentioning GPS? If we're really talking about safety, then GPS out would allow for emergency services to find you, even if you were in the wilderness where cellphones towers typically aren't. But let's be honest, you don't give two shits about safety, you just thought that it would make your facile anti-Apple argument sound better if you sounded like you were "concerned" for Apple customers when you lambasted the Watch for not following Samsung's throw shit at the wall and see what sticks strategy guide.
This is because you do not understand how GPS works, the phone can not pass the GPS signal on the actually coordinated. Plus it defeats the purpose of having the GPS in the watch it self, the idea is so the watch does not need to be tether to the phone. I personally backpack with a number of different GPS receiver and they are all power hogs. I would turning them on to get a location and then back off again so not to run out of power. But to be honest, I rather have a topo map, it gives me a much better idea of where I am and I can look at the map and look at my surrounding and quickly have an idea of my location. I personal never really like navigating with a GPS while camping. I use to GeoCache, this was at the time where GPS receiver got you within about 100 feet, but I usually could get there with a map and compass just as well.
2) No, receiving A-GPS from an iPhone defeats the purpose of having GPS in Watch about as much as having settings for watchOS accessible in the Watch app on the iPhone.