The Gear fit

[sentinelsx]

I think the orientation makes sense, although the best option would be portrait to landscape switching based on an accelerometer, but for an all purpose smartwatch.

This is fitness oriented (and the only wearable accessory i like btw) and consider your hand stretched in front while training, would you rather tilt your head sideways? You are not supposed to wear it everywhere like the gear where orientation makes more sense.

 

[hot spare]

I think the Fit will sell well if it's under $200.

Doubt it will be under 200. Even a basic nike + fuelband SE is 149, same for jawbone up. This is with a curved AMOLED and many sensors. I will expect minimum 200 for this. Maybe after few months prices will come down.

 

[Oletros]

I don't need to own one to know that you shouldn't need to turn your head or flex your arm in an unnatural position to line up with the watch.

No, you don't. Well, you do if you think that putting your arm in front of you is antinatural

 

[mKTank]

No, you don't. Well, you do if you think that putting your arm in front of you is antinatural

It's like using a phone with your head at 70 degrees counter-clockwise. You and Lloydbm41 have settled for a flawed design.

It's basic design sense that is centuries old and they managed to screw it up; a watchface should align with your eyes. Simple as that. If you *don't mind* then good for you. Clearly these watches are for people with low expectations.

 

[Oletros]

It's basic design sense that is centuries old and they managed to screw it up; a watchface should align with your eyes. Simple as that. If you *don't mind* then good for you. Clearly these watches are for people with low expectations.

I didn't knew that a watch face is automatically aligned with your eyes. Perhaps my arms are not natural because I have to align my wrist with my eyes. Tell how different is aligning the ****ing wrist in the other direction to put the watch aligned with your eyes.

 

[spinedoc77]

How hard is it to read at an angle? I kind of agree that it's not the optimal angle, but the optimal angle would probably be vertically oriented and not use the screen space efficiently. A compromise was to horizontally orient the information and assume the person using it wasn't mentally challenged enough to be unable to read text at a slight angle.

 

[daveathall]

How hard is it to read at an angle? I kind of agree that it's not the optimal angle, but the optimal angle would probably be vertically oriented and not use the screen space efficiently. A compromise was to horizontally orient the information and assume the person using it wasn't mentally challenged enough to be unable to read text at a slight angle.

I agree with this, there has not been one video or photo of it where I have not been able to very easily read the time from the device. Nitpicking springs to mind.

 

[mKTank]

I didn't knew that a watch face is automatically aligned with your eyes. Perhaps my arms are not natural because I have to align my wrist with my eyes. Tell how different is aligning the ****ing wrist in the other direction to put the watch aligned with your eyes.

The arm doesn't twist in a way in which you can comfortably read the watchface of this watch or that Nike watch, whereas it's possible and comfortable with a regular watch. This reeks of "we didn't have enough time/didn't care enough to make this watch readable as, oh I don't know, a watch. So you're gonna have to read your time sideways from now on."

You're comfortable with it, cool, but it's a design oversight. Otherwise this watch would have been perfect if it had allowed for "portrait" orientation.

 

[spinedoc77]

I find it kinda funny that someone can't read this from a slight angle!! How much HUGER can those numbers be? There is no other way to orient them unless you physically change the design of it, and make it wider then it would just be the full gear watch and not a fitness bracelet anymore.

 

[RMXO]

Depending on the pricing, I'm very interested in it since my GF and I are thinking of taking better care of ourselves. Plus, it would be a great excuse to get one.

 

[Lloydbm41]

How hard is it to read at an angle? I kind of agree that it's not the optimal angle, but the optimal angle would probably be vertically oriented and not use the screen space efficiently. A compromise was to horizontally orient the information and assume the person using it wasn't mentally challenged enough to be unable to read text at a slight angle.

Nah. You don't have to do anything differently. It is extremely easy to read on the wrist the way they designed it. In fact, when you go to tap the button to get time/calories/fuel points or whatever, the arm is in front of you already, so it is nearly perfectly aligned.
mkTank hasn't a clue what he's talking about and assumes that everyone bends their elbow at 90 degrees with the arm directly in front of them to read a watch. Sometimes, you just can't lead a horse to water and have to let them die of dehydration.

 

[mKTank]

I find it kinda funny that someone can't read this from a slight angle!! How much HUGER can those numbers be? There is no other way to orient them unless you physically change the design of it, and make it wider then it would just be the full gear watch and not a fitness bracelet anymore.

Or just have it in portrait, like this:

It's a design flaw if the screen doesn't align with the user's eyes. Doesn't matter how "easily readable" it is; it's a glaring imperfection in design.

 

[ChrisTX]

If the price is right, I'm in. I run a lot and think this could prove to be very useful.

 

[Lloydbm41]

Or just have it in portrait, like this:

Image

It's a design flaw if the screen doesn't align with the user's eyes. Doesn't matter how "easily readable" it is; it's a glaring imperfection in design.

Oops, design flaw! A glaring imperfection! You have to rotate the wrist to be able to read all the info or touch certain areas. Who would come up with something so ridiculous as this design? No one will buy something this imperfect. I mean, if I have to rotate my wrist constantly to see information, I would go crazy!

Oh wait. It's just vaporware. Never mind.

 

[gotluck]

Does this device offer any functionality beyond fitness and the time when you don't have the phone on you?

 

[mKTank]

Oops, design flaw! A glaring imperfection! You have to rotate the wrist to be able to read all the info or touch certain areas. Who would come up with something so ridiculous as this design? No one will buy something this imperfect. I mean, if I have to rotate my wrist constantly to see information, I would go crazy!

Oh wait. It's just vaporware. Never mind.

Except it's impossible to rotate the human arm in a way that will line up the screen with the eyes (unless you wear the watch with the screen laying against the inside of your arm). It's not just an inconvenience, it's an impossibility to get perfect alignment.

Welcome back to discussing the issue with me. Didn't take long.

 

[Dontazemebro]

The current gear is $299 right? I would think the current generation would drop drastically in price and the new scheme may be something like:

$350 new gear
$299 the one w/o a camera and speaker phone
$249 for the fit.

If this is the pricing scheme then Samsung automatically gets an F. One of the biggest reason the OG Gear didn't sell that well was because of its hefty price tag. If Samsung wants to really make a splash it would be more in line with

$249 - The new Gear w/camera
$199 - Neo Gear without/camera
$169 - Galaxy Fit

Btw - mKTank is a troll, I don't know why you guys keep feeding him. Eventually, he'll either starve to death under that bridge or just leave.

 

[mattopotamus]

If this is the pricing scheme then Samsung automatically gets an F. One of the biggest reason the OG Gear didn't sell that well was because of its hefty price tag. If Samsung wants to really make a splash it would be more in line with

$249 - The new Gear w/camera
$199 - Neo Gear without/camera
$169 - Galaxy Fit

Btw - mKTank is a troll, I don't know why you guys keep feeding him. Eventually, he'll either starve to death under that bridge or just leave.

I may be way wrong here, but I thought the original gear actually sold really well.

 

[Oohara]

Or just have it in portrait, like this:

Image

It's a design flaw if the screen doesn't align with the user's eyes. Doesn't matter how "easily readable" it is; it's a glaring imperfection in design.

I agree with this. I wouldn't go as far as to call the current alignment a "glaring imperfection" perhaps, but definitely unnecessarily limiting if left as the only option. I mean, of course I could read those big digits even if aligned towards my hand, but having them aligned perpendicularly to my arm would definitely be more natural.

Additionally, far more uses for that screen format do become available with the perpendicular alignment, like in the examples in those pictures. Ultimately what I'd like to see is a full-fledged smartwatch using a screen like this, just a tad wider. This would certainly grant a lot more screen real estate than the regular square format, while allowing for a very slim device. Bendable screen tech would really come in handy in such a watch - you could then take it off (the ability to pop it out of the wristband becomes even more useful here) and lay it down on a table to have it stretch out on the flat surface.

 

[Dontazemebro]

I may be way wrong here, but I thought the original gear actually sold really well.

It probably sold well after all the incentives Samsung was offering but initially it wasn't .

 

[spinedoc77]

Or just have it in portrait, like this:

Image

It's a design flaw if the screen doesn't align with the user's eyes. Doesn't matter how "easily readable" it is; it's a glaring imperfection in design.

I think the design flaw is in the pictures you provided, but that's just my opinion as a user. The text/readout is much smaller and I find it more difficult to read the small scrunched up text than the huge text on the Fit's screen.

What's funny to me is that in the pics you provide the user has to bend his arm towards his body to read the readout, then of course you have the smaller text and trying to fit in things like text messages, notifications, missed calls, emails, etc into a vertical space, what a huge DOH. With the smaller text you not only have to move your arm to have the fit in line with your eyes, you most probably also have to lift it closer to your eyes to read the smaller text. With the Fit's orientation you don't have to lift your arm towards your body, you can leave it where you had it and just glance down and with any tiny modicum of intelligence your brain can handle the very slight angle the text is at. I don't know what kind of work out you do, but when I work out very hard and the last thing I want to do when sprinting top speed is have to lift my arm out and up close to my eyes and squint them to see my readout.

But most likely users wouldn't bother lifting their arm up anyhow, and aligning it vertically as you show would result in reading the text at a slight angle anyway, but now with smaller text and scrolling vertical notifications. Man, what an awful solution. In terms of the real world does anyone really lift their current watch up and in to line up with their eyes before reading the time?

----------

I agree with this. I wouldn't go as far as to call the current alignment a "glaring imperfection" perhaps, but definitely unnecessarily limiting if left as the only option. I mean, of course I could read those big digits even if aligned towards my hand, but having them aligned perpendicularly to my arm would definitely be more natural.

Additionally, far more uses for that screen format do become available with the perpendicular alignment, like in the examples in those pictures. Ultimately what I'd like to see is a full-fledged smartwatch using a screen like this, just a tad wider. This would certainly grant a lot more screen real estate than the regular square format, while allowing for a very slim device. Bendable screen tech would really come in handy in such a watch - you could then take it off (the ability to pop it out of the wristband becomes even more useful here) and lay it down on a table to have it stretch out on the flat surface.

I think it depends on what you are displaying on the screen, there could be pros and cons with each orientation. I would think if you are looking at a lot of text, like notifications, text messages, emails, missed calls, etc then the vertical solution would be AWFUL, just utterly useless. For small stuff, like heartrate, time, steps, etc it should be ok, but you are still going to get smaller text squeezed into a smaller space, or you are going to get elements which are stacked vertically and it might not make sense that way.

I wonder if Samsung will update it to flip like the Gear 1 does. I'm assuming people who got hands on time with it reported the display doesn't flip? I'll bet Samsung will have the display flip eventually, if it doesn't already.

 

[mattopotamus]

I think the design flaw is in the pictures you provided, but that's just my opinion as a user. The text/readout is much smaller and I find it more difficult to read the small scrunched up text than the huge text on the Fit's screen.

What's funny to me is that in the pics you provide the user has to bend his arm towards his body to read the readout, then of course you have the smaller text and trying to fit in things like text messages, notifications, missed calls, emails, etc into a vertical space, what a huge DOH. With the smaller text you not only have to move your arm to have the fit in line with your eyes, you most probably also have to lift it closer to your eyes to read the smaller text. With the Fit's orientation you don't have to lift your arm towards your body, you can leave it where you had it and just glance down and with any tiny modicum of intelligence your brain can handle the very slight angle the text is at. I don't know what kind of work out you do, but when I work out very hard and the last thing I want to do when sprinting top speed is have to lift my arm out and up close to my eyes and squint them to see my readout.

But most likely users wouldn't bother lifting their arm up anyhow, and aligning it vertically as you show would result in reading the text at a slight angle anyway, but now with smaller text and scrolling vertical notifications. Man, what an awful solution. In terms of the real world does anyone really lift their current watch up and in to line up with their eyes before reading the time?

----------



I think it depends on what you are displaying on the screen, there could be pros and cons with each orientation. I would think if you are looking at a lot of text, like notifications, text messages, emails, missed calls, etc then the vertical solution would be AWFUL, just utterly useless. For small stuff, like heartrate, time, steps, etc it should be ok, but you are still going to get smaller text squeezed into a smaller space, or you are going to get elements which are stacked vertically and it might not make sense that way.

I wonder if Samsung will update it to flip like the Gear 1 does. I'm assuming people who got hands on time with it reported the display doesn't flip? I'll bet Samsung will have the display flip eventually, if it doesn't already.

uhh..I always tilt my watch towards my eyes. I do not actually lift it, but it would be much easier to read if the screen oriented the same direction as a normal watch.

I know I could read it either way, and I cannot comment on how easy or difficult the gear would be to read, but common sense tells me it would be better the other direction.

 

[spinedoc77]

uhh..I always tilt my watch towards my eyes. I do not actually lift it, but it would be much easier to read if the screen oriented the same direction as a normal watch.

I know I could read it either way, and I cannot comment on how easy or difficult the gear would be to read, but common sense tells me it would be better the other direction.

Ahh, I didn't think anyone actually did that, I just glance down at my watch. Seems like a lot of wasted energy, hehe. Still though my specific question was who actually lifts up their arm to line it up with their eyes? If you are just tilting your watch slightly in I don't see what the difference is between that and slightly tilting your wrist out to read it horizontally. Although I don't see the need to do either personally.

It seems like it could go either way, personally I'd rather read text horizontally and not vertically. Hopefully Samsung has a way to flip the orientation.

 

[mKTank]

I think the design flaw is in the pictures you provided, but that's just my opinion as a user. The text/readout is much smaller and I find it more difficult to read the small scrunched up text than the huge text on the Fit's screen.

What's funny to me is that in the pics you provide the user has to bend his arm towards his body to read the readout, then of course you have the smaller text and trying to fit in things like text messages, notifications, missed calls, emails, etc into a vertical space, what a huge DOH. With the smaller text you not only have to move your arm to have the fit in line with your eyes, you most probably also have to lift it closer to your eyes to read the smaller text. With the Fit's orientation you don't have to lift your arm towards your body, you can leave it where you had it and just glance down and with any tiny modicum of intelligence your brain can handle the very slight angle the text is at. I don't know what kind of work out you do, but when I work out very hard and the last thing I want to do when sprinting top speed is have to lift my arm out and up close to my eyes and squint them to see my readout.

But most likely users wouldn't bother lifting their arm up anyhow, and aligning it vertically as you show would result in reading the text at a slight angle anyway, but now with smaller text and scrolling vertical notifications. Man, what an awful solution. In terms of the real world does anyone really lift their current watch up and in to line up with their eyes before reading the time?

----------



I think it depends on what you are displaying on the screen, there could be pros and cons with each orientation. I would think if you are looking at a lot of text, like notifications, text messages, emails, missed calls, etc then the vertical solution would be AWFUL, just utterly useless. For small stuff, like heartrate, time, steps, etc it should be ok, but you are still going to get smaller text squeezed into a smaller space, or you are going to get elements which are stacked vertically and it might not make sense that way.

I wonder if Samsung will update it to flip like the Gear 1 does. I'm assuming people who got hands on time with it reported the display doesn't flip? I'll bet Samsung will have the display flip eventually, if it doesn't already.

It's the same area, orientation doesn't matter; you will fit exactly the same text of the same size in either orientation. Basic geometry.

 

[spinedoc77]

It's the same area, orientation doesn't matter; you will fit exactly the same text of the same size in either orientation. Basic geometry.

432x138 resolution. I'd definitely prefer to see text messages, emails, notifications, missed calls, etc horizontally. I don't see how you can fit the same amount of text vertically unless you stack it and that would look utterly awful and be the epitome of non-functional. Basic aesthetics.