Android Central review of the Gear S

[Jim Buono]

If leaving your phone home and still being able to make and receive calls is of little importance to you, then sure, the moto 360 is a very viable choice. Style will likely be the major deciding factor.

But reviewing the Gear S and comparing it to another smart watch as if they are equivalent because you don't care about the device's most significant feature is IMHO, nonsense.

 

[Mom2Ninjas]

Tech reviewers are just people with opinions too. In the end who cares what they think. I love my Gear S.

 

[fkpalm]

I think all these reviews are just opinions of the person doing the review. I had a pebble original gear the gear 2 and moto 360 and without a doubt the Gear S is the best in my opinion. Now i feel that the biggest fault that alot of reviewers have of the S is that it is tied in with the Samsung Echo system. If samsung decided to open it up to more adroid phones the reviews will be much better.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[jlczl]

I think all these reviews are just opinions of the person doing the review. I had a pebble original gear the gear 2 and moto 360 and without a doubt the Gear S is the best in my opinion. Now i feel that the biggest fault that alot of reviewers have of the S is that it is tied in with the Samsung Echo system. If samsung decided to open it up to more adroid phones the reviews will be much better.

Posted via the Android Central App

Without a doubt they're opinions. The good thing is that when actual users post their experiences, it helps others decide if they'll work for them. I know it helps me.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[aitt]

I think all these reviews are just opinions of the person doing the review. I had a pebble original gear the gear 2 and moto 360 and without a doubt the Gear S is the best in my opinion. Now i feel that the biggest fault that alot of reviewers have of the S is that it is tied in with the Samsung Echo system. If samsung decided to open it up to more adroid phones the reviews will be much better.

Posted via the Android Central App

Reviews are only as good when given accurate information and not misleading people. Information can be good or bad but it needs to be accurate.

Telling people that the watch doesn't have an always on option, for example, is inaccurate.

I never seen so many people upset in review comments as I've seen with this. It's not just me of a few of us in the forums, but for real everyday users who knows the reports are either not fully reviews, misleading, and constantly meet with restrictive negativity

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[Jim Buono]

It's odd that the reviews (Android Central, CNET, Engages) are negative, while most user comments are very positive.
What makes the reviewer's comments suspect is the nature of the negativity. The Gear S doesn't work with every phone made, it doesn't do everything a smart phone will do, it doesn't do things as easily as a smart phone.
I'd like to say it's just a case of unrealistic expectations, but these are experienced tech reviewers.
Do we have an Apple camp, an Android camp, a tiny Microsoft camp and, it seems, an even smaller Samsung camp?
It's gotten to the point the only use for the reviews is to generate user comments, which are more helpful than the review.

 

[jlczl]

It's odd that the reviews (Android Central, CNET, Engages) are negative, while most user comments are very positive.
What makes the reviewer's comments suspect is the nature of the negativity. The Gear S doesn't work with every phone made, it doesn't do everything a smart phone will do, it doesn't do things as easily as a smart phone.
I'd like to say it's just a case of unrealistic expectations, but these are experienced tech reviewers.
Do we have an Apple camp, an Android camp, a tiny Microsoft camp and, it seems, an even smaller Samsung camp?
It's gotten to the point the only use for the reviews is to generate user comments, which are more helpful than the review.

I actually believe it's because the reviewers from those sites you mentioned are a little bit more objective. They have access to a wide variety of devices and operating systems so they compare it to what they have used. On the other hand, you have users that have invested their money and have a tendency to need to justify their purchases. Nobody likes seeing the devices they spent their hard earned money on getting negative reviews so they tend to comment a little bit more positive.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[Jim Buono]

I actually believe it's because the reviewers from those sites you mentioned are a little bit more objective. They have access to a wide variety of devices and operating systems so they compare it to what they have used. On the other hand, you have users that have invested their money and have a tendency to need to justify their purchases. Nobody likes seeing the devices they spent their hard earned money on getting negative reviews so they tend to comment a little bit more positive.

Posted via the Android Central App

You're kidding, right?

Tech product reviewers on internet sites are known for their objectivity? Sorry, there goes your credibility.

Even people who don't own the Gear S but have looked at it in best buy smell a rat. And its not just the Gear S. Its anything by Microsoft. On the Apple sites like Cnet, its anything Android. On the Android sites its anything Apple.

Why do you feel the need to defend such obvious shilling?

 

[jlczl]

You're kidding, right?

Tech product reviewers on internet sites are known for their objectivity? Sorry, there goes your credibility.

Even people who don't own the Gear S but have looked at it in best buy smell a rat. And its not just the Gear S. Its anything by Microsoft. On the Apple sites like Cnet, its anything Android. On the Android sites its anything Apple.

Why do you feel the need to defend such obvious shilling?

LOL, OK I guess I've lost my credibility because of my opinion that websites doing reviews can be objective.

Let's face it, it's normal human tendency not to see the flaws in ourselves. I think that tends to extend to the things we purchase and like/enjoy. I've seen those reviews and I didn't see much bias if any. I see people trying to figure out the S. Am I naive? Maybe so, but I don't really think so.....especially about the reviews here on AC. Eventhough some people might, not everyone has an agenda.

At any rate, it isn't anything to get super excited about. It is what it is.

I have my Gear S and my Moto 360. They're both better than the other at certain things. Yes, I prefer the 360 but I still like my S.

I just notice a lot of people getting worked up over other's opinions about our watches. Who cares? The important thing is that it works for you.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[Jim Buono]

LOL, OK I guess I've lost my credibility because of my opinion that websites doing reviews can be objective.

Let's face it, it's normal human tendency not to see the flaws in ourselves. I think that tends to extend to the things we purchase and like/enjoy. I've seen those reviews and I didn't see much bias if any. I see people trying to figure out the S. Am I naive? Maybe so, but I don't really think so.....especially about the reviews here on AC. Eventhough some people might, not everyone has an agenda.

At any rate, it isn't anything to get super excited about. It is what it is.

I have my Gear S and my Moto 360. They're both better than the other at certain things. Yes, I prefer the 360 but I still like my S.

I just notice a lot of people getting worked up over other's opinions about our watches. Who cares? The important thing is that it works for you.

Posted via the Android Central App

Here are a couple of things for you to consider because you are naïve.

Tech sites get their money from advertising and advertising means eyeballs. Eyeballs are generated by tips, rumors and invitations to see and test new products. Apple is especially bad about freezing out reviewers who give less than glowing reviews or who favor other products in comparisons.
If you're an Android site you don't care about Apple not giving you early info, you just don't want to annoy Google, while still creating the impression of being evenhanded.

The tech world runs on rumor and access to information.

When people have a financial interest in having access to information from a specific manufacturer or will lose money if a manufacturer freezes them out, bias will exist in reviews.

While you may think that owners countering biased reviews is just purchase justification, when so many owners are incensed, the Gear S review, for example, even you must see there's something there.

While biased, negative reviews on Apple sites weren't enough to kill the Note phones, I want to see the Gear S type product succeed and for development to continue. A fair evaluation of the product is all we want.

 

[DAS]

Here are a couple of things for you to consider because you are naïve.

Tech sites get their money from advertising and advertising means eyeballs. Eyeballs are generated by tips, rumors and invitations to see and test new products. Apple is especially bad about freezing out reviewers who give less than glowing reviews or who favor other products in comparisons.
If you're an Android site you don't care about Apple not giving you early info, you just don't want to annoy Google, while still creating the impression of being evenhanded.

The tech world runs on rumor and access to information.

When people have a financial interest in having access to information from a specific manufacturer or will lose money if a manufacturer freezes them out, bias will exist in reviews.

While you may think that owners countering biased reviews is just purchase justification, when so many owners are incensed, the Gear S review, for example, even you must see there's something there.

While biased, negative reviews on Apple sites weren't enough to kill the Note phones, I want to see the Gear S type product succeed and for development to continue. A fair evaluation of the product is all we want.

I can see and understand what you're saying. In fact, I have raised a similar observation.

What folks have to remember is that the Gear S is NOT an Android product, so to expect a pro Android tech site to be objective and support the product was not useful thinking by many.

Samsung built the Gear S on a Tizen platform so why did anyone expect Android Central, who needs to be loyal to Android, to give the product a fair review, especially compared to the golden child of Android Wear?

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[Jim Buono]

I can see and understand what you're saying. In fact, I have raised a similar observation.

What folks have to remember is that the Gear S is NOT an Android product, so to expect a pro Android tech site to be objective and support the product was not useful thinking by many.

Samsung built the Gear S on a Tizen platform so why did anyone expect Android Central, who needs to be loyal to Android, to give the product a fair review, especially compared to the golden child of Android Wear?

Posted via the Android Central App

I'm always surprised that people don't understand this basic fact of web sites and really, all media today: there is entertainment and there is propaganda. There is very little information. What information you do get results from sifting through the comments, looking for consistency and handling the product yourself.

To expect objectivity from people who have a financial interest is asking a lot.

 

[Active55]

IMO much of what posters are saying here is true. People use their phones very differently than many of the phones are designed to be used. Each person has their idea of what they want, but the producers have a very different objective in mind that includes: selling services, Apps, advetising, tracking, profile building, privacy invasion in general, etc... I'm a perfect case in point with how I use the Gear S.

I use it as my only phone, not connected in anyway to another phone. This produces some quirks because the Gear S isn't designed to be used without a remote connection, even if it can be. The contact list is the most troublesome feature using the Gear S by itself. For those carriers that don't use SIM cards, you can't even add a contact list. For those that do, you have to jump through hoops to trick it into reading the SIM card contact list.

The funny thing about reviews is that they don't always review the product with what the product is designed to do in mind. Take this example. I'd love to have a somewhat dumb Watchphone designed to make phone calls and text messages with support for BT, but without support for: FB, TWTR, Amazon, My Space, email, GPS, WiFi, etc... Some reviewers would claim such a phone is useless to them. I think GPS is required by law on cell phones in the USA now. The government and private industry want the ability to track you (I don't). I use the larger form factors for the Internet and email. The point being I would praise such a Watchphone for what it is designed for, but many reviwers would slam it because it can't do all the things their Smartphone can do.

A modern day Samsung S9110 with 2G/3G and BT in the form factor of the new Gear S would be great. It wouldn't cost Samsung anything extra to offer the Gears S like that. In fact, the easiest thing for Samsung to do is just add a completely indepentant phone use software option to the existing product and call it a WATCHPHONE, that can also sync to your other cell phone. That way the Gear S will DO-IT-ALL and leave the others in its' dust.

Just my 2-Cents.

 

[Jim Buono]

IMO much of what posters are saying here is true. People use their phones very differently than many of the phones are designed to be used. Each person has their idea of what they want, but the producers have a very different objective in mind that includes: selling services, Apps, advetising, tracking, profile building, privacy invasion in general, etc... I'm a perfect case in point with how I use the Gear S.

I use it as my only phone, not connected in anyway to another phone. This produces some quirks because the Gear S isn't designed to be used without a remote connection, even if it can be. The contact list is the most troublesome feature using the Gear S by itself. For those carriers that don't use SIM cards, you can't even add a contact list. For those that do, you have to jump through hoops to trick it into reading the SIM card contact list.

The funny thing about reviews is that they don't always review the product with what the product is designed to do in mind. Take this example. I'd love to have a somewhat dumb Watchphone designed to make phone calls and text messages with support for BT, but without support for: FB, TWTR, Amazon, My Space, email, GPS, WiFi, etc... Some reviewers would claim such a phone is useless to them. I think GPS is required by law on cell phones in the USA now. The government and private industry want the ability to track you (I don't). I use the larger form factors for the Internet and email. The point being I would praise such a Watchphone for what it is designed for, but many reviwers would slam it because it can't do all the things their Smartphone can do.

A modern day Samsung S9110 with 2G/3G and BT in the form factor of the new Gear S would be great. It wouldn't cost Samsung anything extra to offer the Gears S like that. In fact, the easiest thing for Samsung to do is just add a completely indepentant phone use software option to the existing product and call it a WATCHPHONE, that can also sync to your other cell phone. That way the Gear S will DO-IT-ALL and leave the others in its' dust.

Just my 2-Cents.

I agree with most of what you say. But I do believe that all the nit picking in these reviews is designed to put a negative spin on the product being reviewed.
Many of the nits derided on one product are either downplayed or ignored in reviews of similar products.
Another thing I've noticed is that sites this one and Cnet, Engadget, etc. try to give the appearance of being enthusiast sites, they are all trying to be consumer sites as there's more ad money to be made from the extra eyeballs.
As a result, they often approach their reviews as being aimed at the lowest common denominator. In other words, the simpler the product the better it will appeal to the average consumer. As a result, complex products that do a lot are downplayed. Unless of course its an Android site competing with an Apple site and then the Android product is only a little more complex, but still really simple while the extra complexity, while still easy to use, trumps Apple's simplicity.
Again, not about unbiased information, all about eyeballs and ad dollars.

 

[dorrien12]

I agree I only want my watch phone for calls and sms and maybe emails. That's it, so keep WiFi on but I don't need that data charge. In Gear S form factor or better.

 

[Active55]

After almost two months of using the Gear S as my only phone (not as designed), I did end up letting it go. The main reason was the talking experience wasn't good enough for heavy use or long calls; although just fine for short ones. If used as designed this wouldn't really be an issue. The size/weight was a factor too. What I thought would be a PITA turned out to be one of the best features of this wirst phone; texting. The keyboard was surprising easy to use and taking care of all but the longest novel texts were easily done right on the Gear S using the fantastic keyboard. I wish my SGS DUOS had that same keyboard progam.

I thought of using the phone as it is actually designed, but that requires a compatible phone. The limit of choices there are an issue for some, including me. Can't upgrade my current Samsungs phone software to work with it and the next phone I hope to buy won't work with it either (Sony Xperia Z3/Z4 Compact). Because I really liked the notification feature of a wrist device and the ability to talk when I want to take a quick call, I'm now considering the Sony Smartband Talk. It's much lighter, smaller and has the key features "I" found to be best suited for the wirst. Of course it doesn't have one of the most important features of the Gear S, it's ability to standalone as a phone when you don't want to carry your other cell phone around.

Combining my wallet and cell phoone will be my next adventure; possibly with a wrist device for notifications.

After "my" experience, this article didn't seem that far off the mark, but did seem to have a negative twist to it. The Gear S is a great breakthrough device and as this form factor goes through more iterations, becomes smaller/thinner/lighter with multiple style options from different manufacturers, they will catch on. Personally I'm sold on the wrist notification feature. It's great to get your text and screen calls wihtout having to pull a phone out of your pocket.

My final 2-cents... Cheers!

 

[xendula]

After almost two months of using the Gear S as my only phone (not as designed), I did end up letting it go. The main reason was the talking experience wasn't good enough for heavy use or long calls; although just fine for short ones.

Were you using it without a BT headset, then?

I, too, wish it worked with non Samsung devices, or at least all Samsung phones and tablets, because I will want to replace my ageing Note 2 at some point soon.

 

[Active55]

Were you using it without a BT headset, then?

I, too, wish it worked with non Samsung devices, or at least all Samsung phones and tablets, because I will want to replace my ageing Note 2 at some point soon.

Sorry for the late response...

No. I used it just like a normal cell phone, only talked to my wrist and listened to the caller from my wrist.

I'm hoping to give the Sony SmartBand Talk a try next. Smaller, lighter, waterproof, good battery life (E-Ink) and NOTIFICATIONS is what I really want; with the ability to take the occasional incoming call. Call screening and text screening/viewing are all I'm really after if I am going to be carrying my phone around with me.

Hoping those minimal features might work with Ice Cream Sandwich or Jelly Bean without having to upgrade my phone to a KitKat compatible model right now. Not sure that they will yet. If someone knows, please chime in on my post in the Wearable Forums HERE.

 

[rsmin]

"Just hope that it takes off. I noticed from my experience with the other GG watches, when they start to lose steam from Samsung, the updates and new apps start to slow"

This is SO true. I know they did it with the Gear 1.

 

[xendula]

Sorry for the late response...

No. I used it just like a normal cell phone, only talked to my wrist and listened to the caller from my wrist.

I'm hoping to give the Sony SmartBand Talk a try next. Smaller, lighter, waterproof, good battery life (E-Ink) and NOTIFICATIONS is what I really want; with the ability to take the occasional incoming call. Call screening and text screening/viewing are all I'm really after if I am going to be carrying my phone around with me.

Hoping those minimal features might work with Ice Cream Sandwich or Jelly Bean without having to upgrade my phone to a KitKat compatible model right now. Not sure that they will yet. If someone knows, please chime in on my post in the Wearable Forums HERE.

Have you ever thought of a smart Bt headset that shows notifications and caller ID? Sony makes some awesome ones. I have one that can be paired with 3 (three!!!!) devices at the same time, but I am so in love with my LG Tone Plus headset that I never use it. Have a look at this one.

I would kill for a Gear S clone with full Android on board - and with a different charger that is not prone to breaking. I actually started researching cheap Chinese made Android watch phones, because there are a few apps I'd love to have on my watch in stand alone mode. I love my Gear S and would just strap the other one on the other wrist for the apps.