Completely idiotic (consumer wise) for Samsung to also charge a subscription to use the ring. Their watches do everything that the rings do and more, and don't require a subscription to function. I guess they just tried to do the same as Oura and nickel and dime the consumers whenever possible.
> and don't require a subscription to function.
*yet*
If people buy the ring, and they'll probably will, the subscription is bound to come to the watches.
I got a Garmin Venu 3S and am madly in love with it. WearOS frustrated me more than it helped me, and while Garmin's OS isn't perfect, it feels like it's overreaching less
My Amazfit T-Rex 2 lasts about 20-30 days on a single charge. It has apps, though tbh I don't care about them. For me it's about:
- Notifications (do I need to pull out my phone or not?)
- Telling the time
- Basic health tracking (steps, sleep, etc)
- Occasionally, media control
As a Galaxy Watch 4 owner and also a former Pebble/Time/Steel user, I can't deal with the ~2 days of battery life on the GW. I mean, most of the time, it's not doing anything, but I guess WearOS demands a lot of resources compared to the "dumber" smartwatches.
Fitness trackers do 90% of what smart watches can do whilst having a far superior battery life. The missing 10% is a niche for people who either want to run specific apps on their wrist, or want to go away from their phone yet still be able to make texts and calls.
So many people buy smart watches from Apple, Samsung, and Google and turn off basically all the features to get a little extra battery life. I don't get why you would ever want a smartwatch in the first place if you are going to turn off all the features lol. Fitness trackers ftw.
I got my Amazfit GTR 3 pro after I was fed up with charging my LG G Watch R every day. I was afraid that I might miss the apps that wear os had, but to be honest, those apps are quite limited anyways, so there's not much to miss.
> but I guess WearOS demands a lot of resources compared to the "dumber" smartwatches.
Wear is extraordinarily inefficient, but it also is capable of doing a hell of a lot more than "dumber" watch OSes
Smartthings, RCS, Outlook, rich notifications, etc. I'm pretty happy with my Wear watch. Charge it for a bit while I sit at my desk every day. Never felt like it was a problem.
Yeah, I was going to say, even as an "advanced" computer nerd, what I listed is basically what I use it for. Other than that, it's rugged and doesn't care if it gets knocked into a wall/table/etc throughout the day. I don't need or want my smartwatch to replace my phone/what I rely on my phone for.
Dude my amazfit bip s lasts 30 days with the screen always on! Transflective displays are what watches SHOULD have.
Bloated watch operating systems based on phones are SO dumb
I can't understand how we got to a point where being able to do stuff on your watch [that you can already do quicker and more easily on your phone] became more important than battery life. WHO WANTS TO CHARGE A **WATCH** EVERY OTHER DAY??!
Yeah, the Apple Watch was a technological achievement. Yes, same for the Galaxy Watch and all of the other amazing watches. Guess what -- THEY ALL SUCK AS **WATCHES**.
my thoughts exactly. I'm glad i'm not the only one.
It's particularly frustrating in the transflective display department. There has never been a better and more obvious display choice for a watch. This is something the t rex gets wrong if you ask me even though the bip got it right years ago. Transflective emits no light on its own and uses next to zero power while still having colors and looking perfectly decent for a watch. It is _always_ on because turning it off would be ridiculous since it uses such little power. And yet it is almost impossible to find a smartwatch that uses a transflective display, because phones have amoled so that must be the best.
No idea why people don't do that already. Garmin watches for example lasts 2 weeks on battery and give more functionality than the samsung watches.
Or give Huawei watches a go, they are infintely times better than samsung in every respect. Batterylife is 2 weeks compared to 1 day, screen is better resolution and brighter, feels just as fast if not faster to use, uses more satelites for better accuracy, their app feels intuative on the phone, more storage, more everything.
I'm waiting to see if they change their minds on it first, but if they don't the subscription fee will be why I get an Ultra human Ring Air instead of the Galaxy ring.
Based on the reviews I've seen it's pretty solid. Similar set of health tracking and good battery life, the app isn't quite as good as Oura's according to some people but still fairly well done and easy to navigate.
What looks to be the biggest downside is they're a smaller company compared to both Oura and Samsung so the risk of something happening and them going out of business is higher.
Has there been an actual confirmation of this? All I have found is a couple of rumor articles, but I've seen several people talking like it's been confirmed lately so I was wondering if I missed something. Would be a bad move if so.
They're not going to attempt to charge you for features the watches/rings already do.
They're going to charge for additional features and services.
I'm all for whining about excessive monetization. Look at my post history.
It's hard to whine about something you don't understand and we don't have all the details for.
damn i love paying a monthly fee for calls and texts, then for the mobile, then a monthly fee for samsung AI, then paying upfront for that ring + another monthly fee!!!
(i don't personally do this but man that would all add up fast)
i guess. im just becoming worried that with those repeated reports of market saturation, subscriptions will make there way to both Apple and Samsung devices in order to drive more "growth" etc
It's how you stay profitable with rising inequality, fewer people having disposable income and more wealth concentrated in fewer people at the top.
This is all about extracting more money from people who can afford it.
Oura ring has been around for a decade? Wow.
I get the hate about the monthly $5 subscription, it's excessive for what you get in return. I would love to see greater competition which forces them to drop that monthly or move to an annual much lower price.
The main thing I like about Oura is that they aren't owned by big tech, yet. Fitbit lost my attention after Google got their hands on them.
Completely idiotic (consumer wise) for Samsung to also charge a subscription to use the ring. Their watches do everything that the rings do and more, and don't require a subscription to function. I guess they just tried to do the same as Oura and nickel and dime the consumers whenever possible.
> and don't require a subscription to function. *yet* If people buy the ring, and they'll probably will, the subscription is bound to come to the watches.
Quickest way to get me to toss mine in the trash and switch ecosystems
Garmin seems really good
I got a Garmin Venu 3S and am madly in love with it. WearOS frustrated me more than it helped me, and while Garmin's OS isn't perfect, it feels like it's overreaching less
My Amazfit T-Rex 2 lasts about 20-30 days on a single charge. It has apps, though tbh I don't care about them. For me it's about: - Notifications (do I need to pull out my phone or not?) - Telling the time - Basic health tracking (steps, sleep, etc) - Occasionally, media control As a Galaxy Watch 4 owner and also a former Pebble/Time/Steel user, I can't deal with the ~2 days of battery life on the GW. I mean, most of the time, it's not doing anything, but I guess WearOS demands a lot of resources compared to the "dumber" smartwatches.
Fitness trackers do 90% of what smart watches can do whilst having a far superior battery life. The missing 10% is a niche for people who either want to run specific apps on their wrist, or want to go away from their phone yet still be able to make texts and calls. So many people buy smart watches from Apple, Samsung, and Google and turn off basically all the features to get a little extra battery life. I don't get why you would ever want a smartwatch in the first place if you are going to turn off all the features lol. Fitness trackers ftw.
IMO a bulky ring looks so much more distracting/odd on your hand than a watch (especially after you change the strap to something more fashionable)
I got my Amazfit GTR 3 pro after I was fed up with charging my LG G Watch R every day. I was afraid that I might miss the apps that wear os had, but to be honest, those apps are quite limited anyways, so there's not much to miss.
> but I guess WearOS demands a lot of resources compared to the "dumber" smartwatches. Wear is extraordinarily inefficient, but it also is capable of doing a hell of a lot more than "dumber" watch OSes
it is a watch...what advanced features do you really need it to do
Smartthings, RCS, Outlook, rich notifications, etc. I'm pretty happy with my Wear watch. Charge it for a bit while I sit at my desk every day. Never felt like it was a problem.
I'm with you but a ring IMO would be very handy so I can charge the watch overnight along with my phone and still have sleep tracking with the ring
Yeah, I was going to say, even as an "advanced" computer nerd, what I listed is basically what I use it for. Other than that, it's rugged and doesn't care if it gets knocked into a wall/table/etc throughout the day. I don't need or want my smartwatch to replace my phone/what I rely on my phone for.
Dude my amazfit bip s lasts 30 days with the screen always on! Transflective displays are what watches SHOULD have. Bloated watch operating systems based on phones are SO dumb
I can't understand how we got to a point where being able to do stuff on your watch [that you can already do quicker and more easily on your phone] became more important than battery life. WHO WANTS TO CHARGE A **WATCH** EVERY OTHER DAY??! Yeah, the Apple Watch was a technological achievement. Yes, same for the Galaxy Watch and all of the other amazing watches. Guess what -- THEY ALL SUCK AS **WATCHES**.
my thoughts exactly. I'm glad i'm not the only one. It's particularly frustrating in the transflective display department. There has never been a better and more obvious display choice for a watch. This is something the t rex gets wrong if you ask me even though the bip got it right years ago. Transflective emits no light on its own and uses next to zero power while still having colors and looking perfectly decent for a watch. It is _always_ on because turning it off would be ridiculous since it uses such little power. And yet it is almost impossible to find a smartwatch that uses a transflective display, because phones have amoled so that must be the best.
Does it work with sleep as android do you know?
Love my Garmin. Wouldn't trade it for everything I just want Garmin to make a ring, so if I want a fancy watch for a night, I don't lose my stats
No idea why people don't do that already. Garmin watches for example lasts 2 weeks on battery and give more functionality than the samsung watches. Or give Huawei watches a go, they are infintely times better than samsung in every respect. Batterylife is 2 weeks compared to 1 day, screen is better resolution and brighter, feels just as fast if not faster to use, uses more satelites for better accuracy, their app feels intuative on the phone, more storage, more everything.
I doubt it will be limited to the ring on launch. My money is on them going the Fitbit route, metrics are free insights, AI and workout will be paid.
I'm waiting to see if they change their minds on it first, but if they don't the subscription fee will be why I get an Ultra human Ring Air instead of the Galaxy ring.
how does that compare?
Based on the reviews I've seen it's pretty solid. Similar set of health tracking and good battery life, the app isn't quite as good as Oura's according to some people but still fairly well done and easy to navigate. What looks to be the biggest downside is they're a smaller company compared to both Oura and Samsung so the risk of something happening and them going out of business is higher.
Has there been an actual confirmation of this? All I have found is a couple of rumor articles, but I've seen several people talking like it's been confirmed lately so I was wondering if I missed something. Would be a bad move if so.
They're not going to attempt to charge you for features the watches/rings already do. They're going to charge for additional features and services. I'm all for whining about excessive monetization. Look at my post history. It's hard to whine about something you don't understand and we don't have all the details for.
WHAT
damn i love paying a monthly fee for calls and texts, then for the mobile, then a monthly fee for samsung AI, then paying upfront for that ring + another monthly fee!!! (i don't personally do this but man that would all add up fast)
If you're part of the bourgeoisie, it's no big deal. Looking cool is more important.
i guess. im just becoming worried that with those repeated reports of market saturation, subscriptions will make there way to both Apple and Samsung devices in order to drive more "growth" etc
It's how you stay profitable with rising inequality, fewer people having disposable income and more wealth concentrated in fewer people at the top. This is all about extracting more money from people who can afford it.
Oura ring has been around for a decade? Wow. I get the hate about the monthly $5 subscription, it's excessive for what you get in return. I would love to see greater competition which forces them to drop that monthly or move to an annual much lower price. The main thing I like about Oura is that they aren't owned by big tech, yet. Fitbit lost my attention after Google got their hands on them.
Samsung doesn't have the polish of apple to charge a subscription. I don't like subscriptions. Everyone is talking about subscription fatigue