Also, Samsung is taking strategy decision to not bet on single horse in long run.
@Wilber, I totally agree with your opinion. I think this is the right strategy to adopt different OS rather than concentrating only on one OS. This move will give comfort to the developers who are working actively in developing the OS.
Jack wrote: A smartphone is one of those things that you think you don't need, but once you have one you wouldn't be without it.
You could say the same thing about heroin.
Personally, I'm happiest when free of the myriad distractions offered by a smart phone. Like Cyrano de Bergerac, if I have a difficult problem to ponder I like to take a walk in the woods -- or the hills or by the shoreline -- free of all electronic devices. I do bring pen and paper to capture ideas.
If other people want smart phones, that's their choice. But as for me, I'm with Mr. Knightley from Emma: "If the Westons think it worth while to be at all this trouble for a few hours of noisy entertainment I have nothing to say against it, but that they shall not choose pleasures for me."
Ditto. The only time I do not have access to a real computer is when I am driving my car. I have no desire to app and drive at the same time.
Really? You take your laptop with when someone else is driving? Waiting for takeaway food? On a walk in the country? To the beach? On vacation? You'd have it with you if you were waiting at the doctors/hospital/dentist? Waiting while your partner tries on clothes? Waiting for your kids to finish football/ballet/music?
Do you never want to check stock prices? The weather? Bus times? The scores? The News? What other film that actor was in?
Why also carry a camera? A sat nav? An iPod? A radio? A pen and paper? An alarm clock? A calculator?
Does your feature phone have all the features you need? Can you set it to be in silent mode until a certain time, where upon it turns the sound back on automatically without you having to remember? I have an App for that.
A smartphone is one of those things that you think you don't need, but once you have one you wouldn't be without it.
I agree. When you have a powerful machine in your pocket, why don't you utilize it?
On one hand, I think what important is whether option is given to user. If I forget my smartphone, I will still want my wristband to function as a watch, or to collect my activity level until the storage it out.
On the other hands, low power consumption is crucial in any wearable device. if a more powerful processor is used, I'm afraid optimizing runtime becomes a challenge.
I think it's less about redundant function and more about not having to use your smartphone as a hub for uploading and reviewing. With simple OSes like Tizen and RTOS, wearables won't be capable of the exact same functions as a phone anyhow. The question is, do they need that capability or just a powerful processor that's capable of synthesizing information for a small range of applications.
Also, Samsung is taking strategy decision to not bet on single horse in long run. By developing its own OS, it might be able to put some weightage in mobile software solution. The advantage of TIGEN that caught my attention is the battery life. If samsung would be able to enable longer battery life on wearable devices with software solutions then it will be a big lead over Andriod.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.