Moto 360 will have wireless charging and will last as long as 2.5 days.

 

I just want to throw my money at it.

Moto 360 will have wireless charging and will last as long as 2.5 days.

 

I just want to throw my money at it.

 

Aren't the days of caring how long a phone lasts over?

 

You can buy Mophie juice packs (or others) that are basically like adding a case to your phone and they add a 2100mah battery in addition to whatever's in your phone already.

 

For people that insist on using a case on their phone, they're nearly no brainers.

 

I still won't use a case on my phones, but I have chargers everywhere. I've never once run out of juice.

100 mbps seems like overkill. What kind of content would require that speed?

4k streaming will use 10-20 Mbps, but I'm not convinced that'll ever really take off all that much.

Aren't the days of caring how long a phone lasts over?

 

You can buy Mophie juice packs (or others) that are basically like adding a case to your phone and they add a 2100mah battery in addition to whatever's in your phone already.

 

For people that insist on using a case on their phone, they're nearly no brainers.

 

I still won't use a case on my phones, but I have chargers everywhere. I've never once run out of juice.

 

It's not a phone...?

 

It's a smart watch.

4k streaming will use 10-20 Mbps, but I'm not convinced that'll ever really take off all that much.

 

4K could take off with streaming, as in the future most of these bandwidth limitations and restrictions will eventually go away, but with 4k (and soon 8k?) storage is more of an issue, as each movie (without extras, languages, etc.) is probably around 150 gigs. But even then, it would be limited (at least for the foreseeable future) to people living where huge bandwidth is available.

 

As seen here:

http://gizmodo.com/5914426/the-first-cinem...ly-breathtaking

 

 

100 mbps seems like overkill. What kind of content would require that speed?

 

No speed is ever overkill. 100 mbps can get you around 13 MB/s. You can download a 1 GB file in about a minute and a half. I don't see how you can complain about faster download speeds...

It's not a phone...?

 

It's a smart watch.

 

Oh, had no idea...then meh.

 

A watch with only 2.5 days of battery life is a useless piece of s***. Watches need battery life that lasts weeks, if not a full month on single charge, and that will include Apple's if/when they release one.

No speed is ever overkill. 100 mbps can get you around 13 MB/s. You can download a 1 GB file in about a minute and a half. I don't see how you can complain about faster download speeds...

 

I agree with this.

 

I wish everyone had 1000mbit at this point.

4K could take off with streaming, as in the future most of these bandwidth limitations and restrictions will eventually go away, but with 4k (and soon 8k?) storage is more of an issue, as each movie (without extras, languages, etc.) is probably around 150 gigs. But even then, it would be limited (at least for the foreseeable future) to people living where huge bandwidth is available.

 

As seen here:

http://gizmodo.com/5914426/the-first-cinem...ly-breathtaking

 

It'll fail like 3D has failed. People will have to upgrade their tv's/monitors and networks will have to film/broadcast in 4k and neither will be willing to do that in the numbers that a change would require. This is especially true if the technology of even better resolution is just down the road.

Oh, had no idea...then meh.

 

A watch with only 2.5 days of battery life is a useless piece of s***. Watches need battery life that lasts weeks, if not a full month on single charge, and that will include Apple's if/when they release one.

 

That's assuming people wear their watches 24/7, which they don't.

 

You gotta take it off sometime. If getting a full charge is as easy as taking it off and putting it on a Qi wireless charger on your night-stand once every 2 days, then people have nothing to complain about.

 

It's also the best looking smartwatch available by far.

 

No speed is ever overkill. 100 mbps can get you around 13 MB/s. You can download a 1 GB file in about a minute and a half. I don't see how you can complain about faster download speeds...

 

For the 2% of the population that downloads files that big, maybe. But even then, is it worth an extra $50/month to gain like 5 minutes of wait time to download a big file?

 

I'm not saying that at some point that kind of speed will be nice to have. But right now? No way, not for the additional cost. I have 24MB/s and it's more than enough for downloading big files, streaming movies, playing games, etc.

That's assuming people wear their watches 24/7, which they don't.

 

You gotta take it off sometime. If getting a full charge is as easy as taking it off and putting it on a Qi wireless charger on your night-stand once every 2 days, then people have nothing to complain about.

 

It's also the best looking smartwatch available by far.

 

 

That does look nice, but I still don't get the need for a smartwatch. Reach into your pocket and pull out your phone. It's not that far away...

That's assuming people wear their watches 24/7, which they don't.

 

You gotta take it off sometime. If getting a full charge is as easy as taking it off and putting it on a Qi wireless charger on your night-stand once every 2 days, then people have nothing to complain about.

 

It's also the best looking smartwatch available by far.

 

 

I take my watch off every night, but I never charge it and I never wind it, nor do I want too. And when I'm on the road, I don't want to have to take ANOTHER charger with me for another device that can't last a week or two.

 

I'm also not a smartwatch person...I wear a real watch, one that tells time with or without electricity.

Edited August 6, 201411 yr by Y2HH

That does look nice, but I still don't get the need for a smartwatch. Reach into your pocket and pull out your phone. It's not that far away...

 

It's great for when you're in the car or can't use your hands. You can text someone just by saying "OK Google, text so and so". You can also use it for navigation (for when you walk or bike), get notifications at a glance, and there's apps that have special functions just for the watch (like a recipe app allowing you to view recipes step by step on the watch).

 

It's an area that's yet to be fully developed and I think there's a use for it.

For the 2% of the population that downloads files that big, maybe. But even then, is it worth an extra $50/month to gain like 5 minutes of wait time to download a big file?

 

I'm not saying that at some point that kind of speed will be nice to have. But right now? No way, not for the additional cost. I have 24MB/s and it's more than enough for downloading big files, streaming movies, playing games, etc.

 

Files will be that big though, they already are. People who download games on Steam, next-gen consoles need fast internet connections or they'll end up waiting forever.

 

It's great for when you're in the car or can't use your hands. You can text someone just by saying "OK Google, text so and so". You can also use it for navigation (for when you walk or bike), get notifications at a glance, and there's apps that have special functions just for the watch (like a recipe app allowing you to view recipes step by step on the watch).

 

It's an area that's yet to be fully developed and I think there's a use for it.

 

It's still going to be a pain to use it for those things though. The screen is just not big enough for practical use IMO.

It's great for when you're in the car or can't use your hands. You can text someone just by saying "OK Google, text so and so". You can also use it for navigation (for when you walk or bike), get notifications at a glance, and there's apps that have special functions just for the watch (like a recipe app allowing you to view recipes step by step on the watch).

 

It's an area that's yet to be fully developed and I think there's a use for it.

 

I think the screen size is far too limited for these functions to be any good.

 

Also, voice control *still* sucks in anything but the quietest of environments.

 

I have a mount in my car that holds my phone and basically accomplishes all of that, only with a screensize that's useful.

 

I don't get the smartwatch thing either. Other than for fitness tracking...I don't get it.

It'll fail like 3D has failed. People will have to upgrade their tv's/monitors and networks will have to film/broadcast in 4k and neither will be willing to do that in the numbers that a change would require. This is especially true if the technology of even better resolution is just down the road.

 

I kind of agree with this simply because huge upgrades JUST occurred going from SD to HD (first 720p, then 1080i/p), including all the broadcasters that had to upgrade all their equipment to broadcast 720p/1080i (since none are even broadcasting in 1080p yet)...I highly doubt they'll be looking to dump all that billion dollar equipment less than a decade after installing it all.

 

I think this will be a niche market and remain that way for quite some time.

I think the screen size is far too limited for these functions to be any good.

 

Also, voice control *still* sucks in anything but the quietest of environments.

 

I have a mount in my car that holds my phone and basically accomplishes all of that, only with a screensize that's useful.

 

I don't get the smartwatch thing either. Other than for fitness tracking...I don't get it.

 

But you're not mounting the watch 3 feet away from you. It'll be on your wrist. You're also not going to look at the watch's screen in your car, nor should you.

 

I think you guys are underestimating how big the screen on that watch actually is. Of all the videos I've seen, it looks huge (the screen that is) for something that's on your wrist.

It's still going to be a pain to use it for those things though. The screen is just not big enough for practical use IMO.

 

iPod Nanos had 1.5 inch screens when they first came out and I don't remember people telling me it was too small to use.

 

The iPod Classic had a 2 inch screen and people watched videos on that...

 

The Moto 360 has a 1.8 inch screen, FWIW.

Edited August 6, 201411 yr by chw42

iPod Nanos had 1.5 inch screens when they first came out and I don't remember people telling me it was too small to use.

 

The iPod Classic had a 2 inch screen and people watched videos on that...

 

The Moto 360 has a 1.8 inch screen, FWIW.

 

You didn't have an alternative in your pocket though.

 

And the Nano was used to provide you two simple lines of text, not recipes, maps, pictures, etc.

You didn't have an alternative in your pocket though.

 

And the Nano was used to provide you two simple lines of text, not recipes, maps, pictures, etc.

 

It did support pictures though. The iPod Classic supported video/pictures and it had a 2 inch screen.

 

And part of the reason for a smart watch is so that you don't have to take your phone out of your pocket.

who ever used their ipod for videos though, that always seemed silly to me

who ever used their ipod for videos though, that always seemed silly to me

 

I know a few who did, but that was back in like 2005.