some initial general questions...

[steph746]

Hi Everyone...I have an iPhone, but actually am considering getting this. Would that be a mistake? I understand that while I cannot pair it with my iPhone, I would still be able to make use of it's features such as GPS? Also, if I have a gmail account for personal use and an Outlook account through work, would I be able to see notifications on the Gear S3?

One other question I have is about the weight and thickness of the Gear S3. It's tough for me to pre-order it without trying it on, so for those of you that may have tested it already, how would you compare the weight and thickness to an Omega Seamaster Planet Ocean? It seems like the watch face would be larger, but it wouldn't be as thick or heavy?

Thanks in advance for any feedback/assistance...

 

[scorpiodsu]

I wouldn't get any smart watching that isn't compatible with my smartphone, LTE or not. You'll need your phone at some point to do stuff.

 

[Jaycemiskel]

To answer your first question, yes that would be a mistake. A lot of it is still going to be tied to the app. I think notifications come from your phone so you won't get those either. You're better off with an Apple watch or pebble honestly.

 

[srz1977]

I would not get an S3 with an iPhone.

You need the Samsung Gear Manager app working properly for everything to function as it should.

I am sure that there are some workarounds, but I still don't think it is worth the hassle. My 2 cents.

 

[afblangley]

Samsung has stated that they will make the S3 compatable with iOS. But it won't be as seamless as with an Android phone. I suggest starting with questioning why you want the S3 to determine if it's worth the hassle for you. If you want a companion device to your iPhone, obviously the iWatch can't be beat. If you want a standalone watch capable of handling calls and messages and don't mind dealing with having a second number, then the S3 is the best available at this time. You may want to consider buying a cheap Android phone to keep in a dresser drawer and retrieve as needed, for setup, updates, syncing, etc.

 

[steph746]

What I really like is the watch functionality. I like the round look and feel of the S3 vs. the Apple Watch. I like the fact that it looks like the battery will last about 3 days or so vs. 18 hours on the Apple Watch.

Back to the watch functionality, I like being able to change up the look with different watch faces. I'm also looking for something that I can use while jogging and biking. Because it has built-in GPS, I wouldn't need a phone to log activity, right? Another feature that I like would be the steps feature. This would also log without a phone?

Being able to know when I get a message or email would be secondary to me. Although I'm still not certain if I need a phone to setup notifications from gmail...

I might also use the watch to control Nest thermostats. Would I need an Android phone to do that?

Being that this is what I'm looking for, would the purchase make sense?

 

[srz1977]

When you first turn on the watch, you need Gear Manager to activate the watch. Maybe you could buy a cheap Android phone like someone else said or switch to the S7.

 

[steph746]

I see That I didn't know. So, you actually need an Android phone to get this thing up and running? You can't activate it without a phone?

 

[keepnitreel]

I see That I didn't know. So, you actually need an Android phone to get this thing up and running? You can't activate it without a phone?

A carrier rep can use a phone inside the store to do the initial setup for you,to get it going. But this would be a huge mistake of buying this watch without a compatible phone. The LTE version uses, what they call number sync and requires a HD voice capable phone to link your current phone number with the watch ️

 

[steph746]

Thank you all for the replies. Just to make sure everything is clear. I'd be looking to purchase the "non-LTE" version. I'd just want to connect it to wifi when possible. The non-LTE version still needs a phone to set it up?

 

[Jaycemiskel]

Yes, it will still require a phone. The fact that you want the WiFi version and not the connected version makes me think it's even less of a fit. For your use case, it almost sounds like you don't need a smartwatch. You might be better off with a fitness tracker that has GPS. It would actually be able to connect to your iPhone and you could keep a log. If you don't have it connected to a phone, how are you going to keep a record of your activities? The watch will eventually run out of space.

 

[keepnitreel]

You don't want to purchase any version of this watch as long as you're using an iPhone. It'll be like purchasing a PS4 game to play in an Xbox one

 

[steph746]

Really? So, if I don't own a phone at all and I just purchase this watch, it will do absolutely nothing?

 

[Jaycemiskel]

Really? So, if I don't own a phone at all and I just purchase this watch, it will do absolutely nothing?

That's correct. You have to be able to connect it to a smartphone first. Smartwatches are made to connect to a phone. They're not really standalone devices. If you really want to spend your money on something you won't be able to use well, go for it. We just don't recommend it.

 

[scorpiodsu]

Really? So, if I don't own a phone at all and I just purchase this watch, it will do absolutely nothing?

Having a smart watch without a compatible smartphone is really defeating the purpose. The watch is essentially an extension of your phone that also provide features (fitness stuff, etc) that a phone can't do. But it's not designed to be solely a standalone device. You'll even be better off with an Android wear watch because at least it'll work with an ios device. Not as good as on android but it works. For now, as long and you're on iPhone, I would steer away from Samsung smart watches that run tizen.

 

[srz1977]

If you aren't really entrenched in the iPhone or its ecosystem and you really want the Gear S3 badly enough, just switch to Android. Besides the GS7, there are a bunch of really great ones out there. (Pixel, HTC10, V20, One+3, etc...)

 

[afblangley]

I disagree that the S3 won't make a good standalone device. I think it will be the best standalone watch on the market (with the possible exception of the LG Urbane 2). It will be able to handle phone calls and messages independently. Some apps, like music and GPS should work fine without a phone. The watch won't be a replacement for a smartphone because it won't have all the requisite functionality, but within its limitations, it should not need to be tethered to a phone.

Personally, I expect the S3 to fill the niche previously occupied by a feature phone that I used when I didn't want to carry around my phablet (ie. at the gym, gardening, cycling, occasions with wardrobe constraints).

 

[Jaycemiskel]

I disagree that the S3 won't make a good standalone device. I think it will be the best standalone watch on the market (with the possible exception of the LG Urbane 2). It will be able to handle phone calls and messages independently. Some apps, like music and GPS should work fine without a phone. The watch won't be a replacement for a smartphone because it won't have all the requisite functionality, but within its limitations, it should not need to be tethered to a phone.

Personally, I expect the S3 to fill the niche previously occupied by a feature phone that I used when I didn't want to carry around my phablet.

I have an LG Urbane 2, you can't activate it without a phone either. The OP doesn't want it to mainly handle phone calls and messages is what she stated. It's more of a fitness thing from the stuff that was mentioned. In which case they would be better served by another device. It just doesn't make much sense to buy this with an iPhone.

 

[scorpiodsu]

I disagree that the S3 won't make a good standalone device. I think it will be the best standalone watch on the market (with the possible exception of the LG Urbane 2). It will be able to handle phone calls and messages independently. Some apps, like music and GPS should work fine without a phone. The watch won't be a replacement for a smartphone because it won't have all the requisite functionality, but within its limitations, it should not need to be tethered to a phone.

Personally, I expect the S3 to fill the niche previously occupied by a feature phone that I used when I didn't want to carry around my phablet (ie. at the gym, gardening, cycling, occasions with wardrobe constraints).

I disagree with you. Spending $350+ for a device that will be limited doesn't make much sense. And I think that is the contention. Not that you couldn't get by with but that it's not ideal and will be sorely limited. Just not a recommended purchase. Now if they don't want a non-integrated, feature-limited experience then go for it. But the opinion is that it isn't worth it to pay that much for a device that you cannot use to its fullest.
I just like to recommend stuff to people based on how it works with their existing stuff and not solely on any device on its own, especially a smart watch. Would I recommend a user with an Android device to look at the S3? Absolutely. IPhone? Nope.

Agree to disagree.

 

[steph746]

I'm anxiously awaiting to see the watch soon. Probably at Best Buy. As long as I don't need an Android phone to activate it, I will consider it. I like the look of it, how you can change watch faces, hopefully can make use of the GPS, maybe use some apps like Nest. I'm still not sure if I can make use of those type of features. I am not looking to monitor text messages or phone calls. I don't think I could anyway without pairing with a phone. I might be able to configure it with gmail without the need for an Android phone?