Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung's Position On Tizen May Hurt Developer Recruitment

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the don't-change-horses dept.

Operating Systems 93

CowboyRobot sends in an article about how Samsung's constantly shifting plans for its smartwatches are making it hard for developers to commit to building apps. Quoting: "Samsung's first smartwatch, released in October last year, ran a modified version of Google's Android platform. The device had access to about 80 apps at launch, all of which were managed by a central smartphone app. Samsung offered developers an SDK for the Galaxy Gear so they could create more apps. Developers obliged. Then Samsung changed direction. Samsung announced a new series of smartwatches in February: the Gear 2, Gear 2 Neo, and Gear Fit. Unlike the first device, these three run Samsung’s Tizen platform. ... This week, Samsung made things even more interesting. Speaking to Reuters, Yoon Han-kil, senior vice president of Samsung’s product strategy team, said the company is working on a watch that will use Google’s Android Wear platform. In other words, Samsung will bring three different watches to market with three different operating systems in under a year."

cancel ×

93 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So ... (4, Insightful)

machineghost (622031) | about 5 months ago | (#46788639)

So basically they're just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks? I suppose that's one way to avoid choosing the wrong platform ...

Re:So ... (2)

zlives (2009072) | about 5 months ago | (#46788725)

shotgun approach... works in a product infancy phase... sometimes

Re:So ... (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 months ago | (#46788929)

It seems to be working out for Samsung so far. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:So ... (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46789691)

It's certainly broken.

http://gigaom.com/2014/01/17/m... [gigaom.com]

Samsung have managed to be successful with Android where other phone manufacturers have made losses on it. But it's having as little success with other Linux phone OSs as everyone else is.

They'd do best by sticking with Android. But maybe Google are making that increasingly difficult for them. It sucks not to be in control of your own OS.

Re:So ... (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 months ago | (#46790289)

It is never a bad idea to have contingency plans for likely scenarios. Things change.

Re:So ... (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 5 months ago | (#46791095)

Apple toady calls Samsung broken but. [appleinsider.com]

Re:So ... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46796149)

Samsung would swap places with Apple in a heartbeat if they could.

"Apple was particularly dominant, as it generated around $133 billion in profits, or just under 62% of the total. Samsung trailed far behind but still generated a healthy $56 billion in profits, or around 26% of the total."
http://bgr.com/2014/03/18/appl... [bgr.com]

If you think marketshare is more important to a company than profit, then you don't understand business. Samsung is doing well compared to most mobile phone manufacturers. But they are far behind Apple.

Re:So ... (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 5 months ago | (#46797755)

Haha, no. It is quite elementary that sacrificing market share while increasing prices is a fine recipe for short term gain and long term pain.

Re:So ... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46799829)

You have that the wrong way around. Sacrificing profitability for market share is the dangerous route.

Apple is the biggest and one of the longest established companies in tech. They've always valued profitability over market share. There's no short-termism here.

Re:So ... (1)

putaro (235078) | about 5 months ago | (#46804459)

Really? Apple nearly went out of business in the late 90's because of that business model. You can only go for big margins when your products offer major value over the competition.

Re:So ... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46805773)

You can only go for big margins when your products offer major value over the competition.

Exactly. That was Apple's problem in the 90s. Their product offerings had become dated and uninspiring. Now they justify their premium. That's how they made a big turnaround.

Re:So ... (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 5 months ago | (#46807627)

Fast forward to 2014. Apple's products have become dated and uninspiring.

Re:So ... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46817181)

I'm afraid that's your wish rather than reality.

This was the 90s Mac before the iMac. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
Dull beige PC looking thing with equally uninspiring specs.

The current iMacs, Macs, Macbooks, Macbook Air, iPhone 5, iPad and iPad Mini are certainly not dull and uninspiring. And the specs of every one are amongst the best in the industry. Customer satisfaction is the very best in the industry, and has been every year for more than a decade.

Re:So ... (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 5 months ago | (#46827075)

I'm afraid that's your wish rather than reality.

It would appear to be reality judging from Apple's shrinking market share. For kids, Apple products are something your mom has.

Re:So ... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46834829)

Earnings out today. iPhone sales up 17% YoY. Like every quarter.

As I say, you're in fantasy land.

For kids, Apple products are something your mom has.

If that is so, what's the problem? Mom is the one with the money, not the kids. It's certainly true that iPhone is more popular with moms than Android is. Do you have something against women? Or just women with children?

Other things iPhone users are more likely to be:

Urban, graduates, liberal, more wealthy, optimists, extroverts, have travelled abroad, be early adopters, have used the internet since the early days, people who backup their data, less gullible to telephone marketers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:So ... (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 5 months ago | (#46793727)

Samsung have managed to be successful with Android where other phone manufacturers have made losses on it. But it's having as little success with other Linux phone OSs as everyone else is.

They'd do best by sticking with Android. But maybe Google are making that increasingly difficult for them. It sucks not to be in control of your own OS.

I do think it's exaggeration.

If you look at the Android, more innovations comes from the Android OEMs than from the Google. Tablet support, advanced camera features, multitasking, multi-window, fingerprint sensor, wearable, in-vehicle infortainment - all first were done by EOMs. Google? Fancy UI gimmicks and G+ integration everywhere.

It is really hard to imagine how one can compete with Android right now due to market inertia.

But then, if you look at the reasons why Samsung went for Tizen with the current generation of the Gear devices - dramatic improvement in battery life - one can easily see that there is a niche for other OSs too.

And if you look what path Tizen has chosen to tackle the Android domination - native support for Android apps - you can easily see that the whole premise of the RTFA is flawed. Samsung doesn't want to fragment the market: they want to make Tizen compatible with Android to avoid the fragmentation. Developers shouldn't care what OS runs their apps, as long as it provides all the APIs necessary.

Re:So ... (5, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46788793)

So basically they're just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks? I suppose that's one way to avoid choosing the wrong platform ...

Anything that makes "wearables" die out faster is good in my book. Keep releasing different models all running different OSes and all doing different versions of nothing useful. Manufactured product pushes are like diarrhea. The sooner all the products exit the pipeline, the sooner corporate sees that marketing was blowing smoke up their ass when they told them "wearables" were going to be hot, the sooner I don't have to hear about them and, hopefully, the sooner that marketing dipshit is fired.

The same goes for the asshole who decided that Wendy's, Carl's Jr/Hardees, and Sonic all had to jump on the non-existent pretzel bun bandwagon. Oh wait, nobody actually wanted those? Better jump on the ciabatta bandwagon! That failed too?! Well what about brioche? Still no boost in sales? Revert back to our "classic" buns to save money and leverage our brand!

Re:So ... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 5 months ago | (#46788841)

Anything that makes "wearables" die out faster is good in my book. Keep releasing different models all running different OSes and all doing different versions of nothing useful. Manufactured product pushes are like diarrhea. The sooner all the products exit the pipeline, the sooner corporate sees that marketing was blowing smoke up their ass when they told them "wearables" were going to be hot, the sooner I don't have to hear about them and, hopefully, the sooner that marketing dipshit is fired.

The same goes for the asshole who decided that Wendy's, Carl's Jr/Hardees, and Sonic all had to jump on the non-existent pretzel bun bandwagon. Oh wait, nobody actually wanted those? Better jump on the ciabatta bandwagon! That failed too?! Well what about brioche? Still no boost in sales? Revert back to our "classic" buns to save money and leverage our brand!

Sometimes the product vision is right but the timing or state of technology is wrong. I think wearables might fall into that category but it's too soon to tell. Groundwork and thought leadership today could reap rewards later. Apple's first tablet was such a colossal failure that many, including me, predicted the same for their second attempt. I was definitely wrong.

Re:So ... (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46788909)

Dude, you bet against the iPad? I wish I could have been there to take that bet.

Re:So ... (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about 5 months ago | (#46789159)

Apple's first tablet was the Newton. See how much a failure it was? You never even heard of it.

Re:So ... (1)

Yebyen (59663) | about 5 months ago | (#46789447)

> Apple's first tablet was such a colossal failure that many, including me, predicted the same for their second attempt. I was definitely wrong.

The first tablet was the Newton, and that failed, then years later iPad. I definitely heard of the Newton and I think so did everyone else who was a Simpsons fan at the time:

http://i30.photobucket.com/alb... [photobucket.com]

Re:So ... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46789587)

He said he predicted failure for their SECOND tablet. Which was the iPad.

Re:So ... (1)

rk (6314) | about 5 months ago | (#46790633)

Sad thing was, I got much more utility out of my Newton than my iPad. I don't even know *where* my iPad is right now, and I'm not even sure where to look for it. It could be stolen for all I know.

Re:So ... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46790857)

Because you didn't have a mobile phone then and you do now?

Re:So ... (1)

rk (6314) | about 5 months ago | (#46790955)

Hmmm. That's a good point, especially since I carry around a big boat Note 2. But there's something I did with my Newton that I still don't do with any electronic device and that is take notes. It's the only device I ever had that recognized my native handwriting (not printing, not Graffiti from the Palm OS era), which is an amazing feat because I can barely read my own handwriting.

Re:So ... (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 5 months ago | (#46791363)

He said he predicted failure for their SECOND tablet. Which was the iPad.

Yes, this is what I meant, and I was far from the only one saying so. Those who weren't Apple fanbois mostly predicted the iPad to be nothing more than an oversized iPod Touch filling a small niche that could only cannibalize from Apple's existing portfolio.

10" touchscreen tablets were totally unheard of, the Newton was a flop, and everyone hated laptops with touchscreens. A tablet, keyboardless computer had, in the history of mankind, never been successful. Plus the iPad was _expensive_. People would buy the cheaper Kindle or netbooks (remember those?) instead. The concept of carrying around a tablet instead of a laptop was ludicrous, because the apps that would enable you to do that did not yet exist. Four years later it's easy to look back and say "well, duh", but in 2010 it was seen as a risky move for Apple.

My point is that it's easy to be wrong about what people will buy, and it's too early to know what will happen with wearable computing. The right product at the right time could change everything.

Re:So ... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46796177)

Those who weren't Apple fanbois mostly predicted the iPad to be nothing more than an oversized iPod Touch filling a small niche that could only cannibalize from Apple's existing portfolio.

Not quite. It was those that are active haters of Apple, or those who do click-bait blogs that said things like that. Most people without an axe to grind thought that Apple would probably be as successful with it's new tablet as it was with it's previous categories of smartphone and music player.

And those haters and click-bait bloggers were wrong.

This is different. I'm seeing the middle ground of non-fanboys and non-haters as being unconvinced by wearables. That's not the same as the iPad.

Re:So ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46803441)

Plus the iPad was _expensive_.

No way. I can still remember the collective gasp that echoed through cyberspace when Apple announced the price for an entry grade iPad will cost $499. People were expecting something much closer to $1000.

Re:So ... (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 5 months ago | (#46808931)

Plus the iPad was _expensive_.

No way. I can still remember the collective gasp that echoed through cyberspace when Apple announced the price for an entry grade iPad will cost $499. People were expecting something much closer to $1000.

At the time there was no basis of comparison except for netbooks and the iPod Touch.

Re:So ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46789275)

Tons of people on here did. Just like they did with the iPhone and iPod.

Re:So ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46788911)

Groundwork and thought leadership today could reap rewards later

If you don't have groundwork today you can poison the well so bad nobody else will try, giving you several years to figure it out. See also: Apple Newton.

Apple's first tablet was such a colossal failure that many, including me, predicted the same for their second attempt

Yeah, that!

Re:So ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46791889)

Apple's also spent quite a while developing a smartwatch, they've been talking about something like it for at least 2 years now. They've also been talking about it in a way that potentially sounds useful, saying they'd rather give an experience similar to an iphone, or at least a "complete" experience, in a cheaper package, rather than just make a cheap iphone.

A smartwatch or wearable could be useful if it was independent of a phone. Being able to send and receive messages (maybe via voice control?) directions from a map, and find say a restaurant, are the primary uses of a phone besides gaming these days. The technology to make a smartwatch with a 3g cell connection is present. Processing power and ram can be made small enough to fit. I'm not sure the voice control is there yet, but trying Microsoft's Cortana, it seems a lot closer today than it was even 5 years ago.

It could work, it just needs to be a thing useful in and of itself, rather than a doohickey you attach to your phone like a parasite that provide nothing more than maybe 1 extra second of convenience. And if it was made cheaply enough it could catch on in "the developing world". Trying to make an inherently less expensive device cheap enough for Africa is easier than trying to cram a relatively expensive smartphone down to be cheap enough.

Re:So ...Not a tablet. a PDA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46794399)

I can see how you bet against the Newton: you were way ahead of your time,
  knowing that it would be a "tablet", when in fact was a PDA (Personal Digital Assistant),
  term itself coined by John Sculley

Re:So ... (2)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 5 months ago | (#46788845)

But this kind of thinking is what leads things to stagnate.

I'd rather see a bunch of companies put out a bunch of failed things to iterate over ideas. Wearables might be the future, if someone can crack that nut. I don't think having a smart phone UI shrunk down to a watch is ideal. It didn't work when they squeezed desktop UIs to mobile and tablet spaces.

Pebble's work is compelling, if poorly implemented.

Re:So ... (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about 5 months ago | (#46789799)

The trick to wearables is not to have a UI. Everyone has a powerful computer with a great UI in their pocket. Wearables should leverage that by providing absolute minimal controls (no more than 1 or 2 buttons/knobs, no more than a small digital watch like display) and should transmit their data to the users phone via BLE. Then an app on the phone should provide more advanced control and display of results. The value of wearables is in providing additional sensors for apps, not in UI.

Re:So ... (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 5 months ago | (#46789923)

Blinking LED saying "battery low" or "New notification?" That's UI.

No visible face is still a UI. A UI that's controlled via a website or smartphone is still a UI.

A band with a battery and a crapload of sensors with no way to get the data off of it is useless.

Re:So ... (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about 5 months ago | (#46790157)

The data gets off it via bluetooth to a more powerful device. So yes, no UI at all.

Re:So ... (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 5 months ago | (#46791435)

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that whatever you do with the data, whether sync it to a PC or smart phone and use an application or web interface to interact with the data, or if it has a display, it's all UI.

So UI and UX people need to be cognizant of that.

Re:So ... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46788943)

"Wearable" isn't something bad by definition. It's just that the approach they take to it could not be worse.

Everything that runs towards "wearable" today is basically a reskinned, retooled and reshaped smartphone. That's not really what wearable computing can or even should be. A wristwatch that is essentially a smartphone has nothing to do with wearable. It's a smartphone in a different format. Where is the "wearable" benefit?

If you want to create a wearable, create something where we actually benefit from "wearing" it rather than sticking it in a pocket. The least I'd expect from a wearable is having my hands free and either a HMD or a output interface that doesn't require me to take my eyes off whatever I'm busy with. Else there is exactly zero need to "wear" the gadget, I can as well take it into a hand.

Re:So ... (1)

cusco (717999) | about 5 months ago | (#46789101)

Water sports and winter activities are what come to mind, where you don't have pockets or pockets may be buried under other layers of clothing. And maybe visits to the naturist resort . . .

Re:So ... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46789613)

The whole point of naturism is to avoid wearable anything.

Re:So ... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#46789655)

I don't know about you, when I go skiing, reaching a breast pocket with my cellphone is easier than digging through 2-3 layers of clothing to reach my wrist.

Re:So ... (1)

cusco (717999) | about 5 months ago | (#46792831)

Don't ski, for me reaching my watch has only been a matter of turning back the outer jacket cuff and maybe the mitten. When you're fishing the gloves are off a lot of the time anyway.

watersports? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46792605)

Just put your phone in a ziploc bag when your lovers piss and shit on you. You don't need to live-tweet it (and if you do, get a water proof case).

Re:So ... (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 5 months ago | (#46792065)

Anything that makes "wearables" die out faster is good in my book.

Do you carry around a smartphone all the time? If you don't, many people do.

Isn't a wearable "just" a subset of an existing smartphone, or arguably an addition (due to using smartphone for communication with the wearable)?

I don't have any of the FitBit, etc., but they seem to have become reasonably popular for the early adopter crowd.

Basically, I don't see a need for a wearable currently either, but to completely throw out the idea seems ridiculous. It seems like just an extension of "more, comparatively powerful, personal electronics being used for specialized purposes to augment one's life".

Re:So ... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46792239)

Anything that makes "wearables" die out faster is good in my book.

Do you carry around a smartphone all the time? If you don't, many people do.

Isn't a wearable "just" a subset of an existing smartphone, or arguably an addition (due to using smartphone for communication with the wearable)?

I don't have any of the FitBit, etc., but they seem to have become reasonably popular for the early adopter crowd.

Basically, I don't see a need for a wearable currently either, but to completely throw out the idea seems ridiculous. It seems like just an extension of "more, comparatively powerful, personal electronics being used for specialized purposes to augment one's life".

They're trash because they don't do anything that isn't already:

A: Handled by your phone
B: Handled much better by a dedicated device
C: Both A & B

A good wearable device would be a blood glucose monitor for diabetics that shows real-time (or near-real-time) levels from an embedded sensor, removing the need for the person to sample and test periodically.
Or what about a wearable device people have been using for ages? Bluetooth headsets.

Good wearable devices REDUCE your need to rely on or interact with other devices. Bad wearable devices (everything Samsung et alii are peddling) try to INCREASE your dependence on the device(s). I'm not throwing the idea out completely, I'm throwing out all the recent (and upcoming) forced attempts that don't actually have a use-case. These are the things currently being put out under the "wearables" buzzword. Nobody trotted out that term when Bluetooth headsets were being introduced. They didn't need to - people saw that they we useful and bought them up.

Re:So ... (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 5 months ago | (#46792289)

But they *are* a dedicated device, that's what I was trying to say.. Or at least they're "closer" to a dedicated device than a phone (e.g. maybe doing "physical activity" related measurements).

fast food changes (1)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | about 5 months ago | (#46801195)

I have nearly quit bothering to try to support any 'new' things that come out from food places - anything I *like* will end up getting pulled anyway. I'm still bitter over the scrapping of the McDLT. The McDonald's Chicken Strips? Gone. Wendy's breakfast stuff? Liked them - gone. Wendy's super bar? Gone. I suspect the Taco Bell gorditas will go within 6 months of me developing a regular taste for them. It's a shame, because I want to support innovation, but the larger companies don't seem to be able to commit to things long term any more. Yes, the McDLT was... 5 years? That's about the longest I've ever seen any variation from a menu core last.

Re:So ... (1)

MonkeyBoy (4760) | about 5 months ago | (#46874705)

(small voice) But I like pretzel buns...

Re:So ... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 5 months ago | (#46788839)

It also gives devels the 66% (or even 100%) of chance of choosing the wrong one joining Samsung projects.

Re:So ... (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 5 months ago | (#46788985)

Sounds like the standard Samsung business plan.

IBM and SONY syndrome? (3, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | about 5 months ago | (#46789149)

Long ago IBM split itself in to 7 internal subdivisions that could to a certain extent compete. At the time all of IBM's equipment ran on chips made by IBM for IBM products. The florida area sub-unit which didn't actually make any computers, put one together from intel chips. It was dubbed the PC. The OS was contracted out to some kids from Seattle.

Sony's products division is constantly at war with it's content division, leading to the constant hedging on content protection that defeats their products by using non-standard formats with DRM.

Perhaps Samsung, which is really a humungously diverse set of industries, just has different competing segments within itself. Each has a strategy that is aimed at competing with the other divisions strategy but has to be distinctly different due to the internal politics, just like IBM's PC did.

Its not s strategy to do everything, that's just the result.

Re:IBM and SONY syndrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46789167)

Perhaps apple is suing a completely different part of samsung than it cooperates with on fabrication

Re:So ... (1)

recharged95 (782975) | about 5 months ago | (#46790565)

"different operating systems in under a year."

Yep, no different from MS, Qualcomm, or Intel.

Re:So ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46794599)

It's a good idea, let the consumer choose what they like. That way you don't have to risk making the wrong choice.

of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46788655)

if your strategy is throw shit at the wall and see what sticks then you need to throw a variety of shit at the wall

Talking about developers like an amalgated entity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46788675)

This really rustles my jimmies.

But (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 5 months ago | (#46788809)

I don't wear a wristwatch you insensitive clods

(I do have one around my neck on a lanyard along with a flashlight when I am at work)

Re:But (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46789001)

I like to wear watches. Recently lost my watch, Frownie face. But I don't want to get a new one because I'm holding out for an iwatch later this year. In the meantime, my wrist feels naked! I just hope the iwatch is sub $400.

Re:But (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46789717)

Very functional and attractive watches are available for 10s of dollars. What is it you are expecting an iWatch to do that would make it worth hundreds of dollars?

Re:But (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46790413)

I don't know, but I can't wait to find out!

Re:But (1)

serbanp (139486) | about 5 months ago | (#46791561)

"shut up and take my money!" mentality.

Re:But (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 5 months ago | (#46791857)

I'm actually in a similar boat and I agree--I see no overwhelming reason to replace my watch for the moment and I'll see what unfurls in the smart-watch realm. About the only time I seriously miss having a watch is when I'm bicycling and that's mostly due to an issue with my GPS-based bike computer.

Re:But (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 5 months ago | (#46791245)

I like to wear watches. Recently lost my watch, Frownie face. But I don't want to get a new one because I'm holding out for an iwatch later this year. In the meantime, my wrist feels naked! I just hope the iwatch is sub $400.

I hope in the Apple tradition it is $666, and when you lose it like you lost your other ultra-losable hardware you make a Frowine face so hard it freezes that way.

Re:But (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#46791519)

I hope in the Apple tradition it is $666, and when you lose it like you lost your other ultra-losable hardware you make a Frowine face so hard it freezes that way.

why would you say something mean? that makes me feel bad.

Re:But (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 5 months ago | (#46789389)

II do have one around my neck

Oh yeah? [nerdup.ca]

What's the problem here? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46788825)

They tried regular Android, it didn't work. So they used their own platform. Now Google had an Android platform specifically for these types of devices, so they are going back to Android.

Re:What's the problem here? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 5 months ago | (#46789057)

Nothing, so long as they don't care if developers ignore their schizophrenic platform.

One thing not pointed out (4, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 5 months ago | (#46788889)

In the case of Android Wear, if a developer targets that platform, they won't be limited to *just* Samsung.

This doesn't surprise me. While Android Wear likely won't compete much with the "mostly dumb" smartwatches that consist of only a display and UI for the phone they're tethered to (Sony Smartwatch, Pebble - both of these are able to achieve hardware cost reductions and battery life that Android Wear will never be able to match, putting AW consistently in a different price/functionality market segment than SW and Pebble), Android Wear was a DIRECT competitor for Galaxy Gear - both are in the "High standalone functionality" category. At least by hardware design, that is - a watch running Android should be able to operate almost entirely standalone, using a phone only as a data connection in a manner similar to Google Glass. Unfortunately Samsung totally fucked up Gear and while its hardware capabilities should have made it MORE capable of standalone operation than any other smartwatch out there, Gear wound up the LEAST capable of standalone operation instead - being the ONLY smartwatch which required one of a few specific models of phone as opposed to "any Android phone" (Sony) or "any Android phone or iOS" (Pebble)

By virtue of being in direct competition with Gear (e.g. identical market segment) AND the fact that it's superior, Wear is going to *crush* Gear. (Wear won't likely crush Pebble or Sony Smartwatch since they have the capability to play in a much lower-cost market segment than Wear will be able to due to having significantly lower hardware requirements.)

Re:One thing not pointed out (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 months ago | (#46789811)

You know those electronic tags that they sometimes put around convicts on parole? They go around the ankle and track the movements of the convict, and phone back to base to report them.

The concept of a wristwatch powered by a Google OS reminds me of electronic tagging.

Par for the course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46788975)

This is what Samsung ALWAYS does. They are constantly pitting internal teams/projects against each other.

Re:Par for the course (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46789125)

And pissing off customers. The have this Apple-esque we-know-what-is-better-for-you kind of attitude that has made me stop buying any Samsung products.

Pretty common for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46789037)

I worked for a start-up that did some work for Samsung. Almost every phone we got from them had a different operating system and had an ugly collection of unlicensed development tools to develop applications for that phone. They seem to like the 'try everything' approach. It may come from the fact that a bunch of their customers (the phone companies) would only make a decision to promote a phone when it was near completion with no guarantee that any Samsung phone would be picked. Phones not picked up by a carrier would not sell well enough for them to bother with mass production.

Worth noting (5, Interesting)

jkonrath (72701) | about 5 months ago | (#46789075)

It's most likely that the three different platforms mentioned were developed and evangelized by three different teams at Samsung that never talked to each other. Each team probably thinks their solution is *the* solution.

When I worked at Samsung, divisions were heavily siloed, and often the first time you heard about what they were doing was when you saw it on a news site. Even within the same platform, teams were heavily divided. Our software dev outreach teams didn't even have a way to talk to the hardware design teams.

Re:Worth noting (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | about 5 months ago | (#46793747)

It's most likely that the three different platforms mentioned were developed and evangelized by three different teams at Samsung that never talked to each other. Each team probably thinks their solution is *the* solution.

It's much simpler, actually.

1. Samsung released Gear, based on Android. Major complain: miserable battery life.

2. Samsung released Gear 2, based on Tizen to address the major complains, battery life among them.

3. Google warms up to wearables while at the same time upset about Samsung diverging (and not only on werables). They approach Samsung and pressure them to go back to the official Android way of doing things. Thus, potentially, next Gear might be based on the Android again.

When I worked at Samsung, divisions were heavily siloed, and often the first time you heard about what they were doing was when you saw it on a news site. Even within the same platform, teams were heavily divided. Our software dev outreach teams didn't even have a way to talk to the hardware design teams.

Haven't worked for Samsung myself. From what I heard, your experience reflects most of the Samsung. But the Galaxy phones were so successful, that they treat them very differently. From the scarce accounts, as far as I can tell, the whole Galaxy development is vertically integrated to allow them quicker response to the competitive threats. (The problem, I heard, is that Samsung bosses, seeing Galaxy development being very successful, now throw all possible carp onto it, hoping that the business unit would also fix other broken products too.)

"too hard for developers" (sniff) (3, Informative)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 5 months ago | (#46789085)

I don't understand the belly-aching. When I wrote code for Apple II machines, I had to know both BASIC and assembler. PC? Batch scripting, VB, C++, C#, SQL, InstallShield and still a little assembler. Web and mobile? Javascript, Java, Perl, PHP, Ruby, C#, ASP, Objective-C plus a few dozen "platforms", "frameworks" and what-not cobbled together with JSON, XML, CSS and various template and scripting syntaxes.

So, you have to learn three platforms to keep up with a line of devices? Boo hoo. Besides, an "app" should be something you can crap out in a month or two - these generally aren't monolithic platforms like Office - even the context-switching-disabled should be OK.

Re:"too hard for developers" (sniff) (3, Insightful)

DJCouchyCouch (622482) | about 5 months ago | (#46789157)

It's not the difficulty, it's the potential waste of effort for supporting one platform when Samsung up and decides to change to another. Why support a company you can't rely on being stable?

Re:"too hard for developers" (sniff) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46789365)

Its no problem supporting 3 platforms if they each sell a billion units. Wearables will never reach a million, so why bother?

Re:"too hard for developers" (sniff) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46794439)

Welcome to the world of innovation, where great ideas compete with even greater ideas.

Don't like to learn new tech? No problem. Keep doing what you're doing. You can still use VB if you wish.

Don't repeat yourself (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#46789739)

Needing to hand-translate a program into a separate language for each platform violates don't repeat yourself [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Don't repeat yourself (1)

bsolar (1176767) | about 5 months ago | (#46789787)

You just need another abstraction layer...

Re:Don't repeat yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46790361)

One Framework to Rule Them All!

Re:Don't repeat yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46790823)

Yes, I'm using http://nimrod-lang.org for that.

Re:"too hard for developers" (sniff) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46790191)

Their are more languages then time...

Re:"too hard for developers" (sniff) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46790279)

You must not have actually tried to do it. Keeping up with Android alone is next to impossible, with the UI being practically rewritten for Android 4 and the development APIs changing and churning, and bugs all over the place. The fan-out becomes exponential, if you want to support multiple devices well, since you have to support Google and Amazon. And that's just Android, which I happen to work with. Multiply that by multiple platforms, and the clock doesn't tick enough times to allow you to support it all.

Plus, you make it sound like it's trivial to switch from Perl to Java to jQuery/JavaScript, but it's actually mind-bending. Look at how differently Java and JavaScript support something like an anonymous class. After working with JS for a couple of months on a complex HTML5 widget, I switched back to Java and literally could not force my mind to recall how to access the "this" of the outer class my anonymous class was inside of. I had to Google it.

YMMV, but I don't see how anyone can keep up, and I think it's laughably unrealistic to think they can.

Gear 2 uses the web API (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46789141)

At least with the Gear 2, the native Tizen API isn't in use. While apps are written in a Samsung SDK, it should in theory make it a lot easier to deploy apps developed for the Gear 2 to Android versions as well.

Obvious watch app (0)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46789487)

Masturbation counter/timer.

Re:Obvious watch app (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46790337)

A stroke of genius!

Cant copy Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46790045)

They can't copy Apples product, so to be "innovative" they will produce lots of crappy variations and hope like hell someone likes they stuff.

Fir5t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46790583)

The smartest smartwatch is dumb (1)

Misagon (1135) | about 5 months ago | (#46791313)

I think that Samsung and Google are doing it all wrong.
They are still making smartwatches be "companion devices" to smartphones, yet you still have to write custom code to run on the device.

I think that the best type of smartwatch would be one that would act as a dumb terminal to the phone. Let it act as a second screen to the phone with a few button/touch actions plus a few sensors that feed data in the other direction. That would satisfy the most common use cases where a smartwatch would be useful. The others could be hard-coded not as apps but as system features.
This would be best for the developer, as you would only have to develop one app - not two.
This would be best for the user, as the program code on the "watch" could be simple you would need only a microcontroller that runs at tens of megahertz, and you get long battery life approaching what you are used to get in a watch.
But of course, such a device would be too cheap to make and Samsung would not be able to sell it at a premium...

Re:The smartest smartwatch is dumb (2)

dmitrygr (736758) | about 5 months ago | (#46791875)

I suggest you look at the SDK google released for Wear. It does what you just described...

Android allegiance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46793625)

Can google force Samsung to release products with their android Wear platform ?

Google control the android OS :
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/

They may say, we won't certify your new android product if you don't use your new platform !

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?