> And obviously the same thing holds for the Watch and the bigger iPhone: they were in development for at least a couple of years, iterating and refining them.
Sources or guessing?
I think the similarity of how the iWatch and the Android watches work is too similar to be a coincidence. There's some cool software work on Apple's watch, and I believe it'll generally be a better product overall. But it looks just like something somebody would make after seeing the competition and iterating an improvement on it. That's my assertion and I'm going to stick with it until somebody proves me wrong.
> Second, Samsung only started on their watches when rumours of an iWatch pending had already surfaced
IIR that's correct. iWatch rumors started and Samsung tossed together the Gear to get it out the door first. Apple didn't ship and now we're on Gen 2 of Android watches while Apple releases a nearly identical product...even down to some fairly small use-case details. I'm not poo pooing the device, with Apple's polish and tight integration I'd call it a Gen 2.5 smartwatch. It looks good, and going old-school Blackberry with the knob as an input device is a good idea. It's probably a full half-to-full generation ahead of the current Android devices for very Apple-y reasons.
But there's very little new here, and more important it's not all that different. It doesn't look like an independently developed device. It looks like a particularly well thought out Android smart watch. Apple could have...should have...gone a completely different direction with the watch, but they didn't.
Basically your story doesn't make any sense. The public story is that all Samsung knew was "Apple is working on a watch", and with that information, completely independently tossed together (with a little help from Google) a device that, in the Gen 2 version of Android Smartwatches, just so happens to work almost exactly like the iWatch minus the nub. From needing to tether, to use-cases, to display turn-on when raised, etc. There's a million different directions each watch development effort could have gone, yet both efforts coincidentally independently arrived at the same conclusion...with both teams operating in secret, probably on opposite sides of the planet.
The probably of that happen are only slightly less than throwing a bunch of parts into a dryer and at the end of the cycle getting a clock.
If Samsung developed the smartwatch based on nothing more than a rumor and just slapped it together, then they did one hell of a job because that's the template all new smart watches are currently following and they deserve a little more credit. If they copied Apple outright, then there's some serious leaks in Apple's R&D department.
But neither of those cases fits Occam's razor -- there are no coincidences...the similarities are too strong. It's more likely Apple has been mulling around a watch for a while. Samsung slapped together a watch based on a rumor, the gen 2 devices were pretty good and Apple simply went the direction with the idea that Samsung had pioneered. The only other conclusion is that Samsung committed one of the greatest acts of industrial espionage since the Soviets stole the designs for the atom bomb.
Note: I don't know why you're getting downvoted, we're just having a civil discussion. People get so emotional around Apple's stuff.
Neither. For one, it's obvious that any such products needs at least 1-2 years to design, manufacture prototypes, etc. Second, we've seen several previous exposes of how Apple developed new stuff (iPad was in the labs for 7-8 years, the iPhone the same, etc, and there have been galleries of the tons of prototypes they checked published). So, I was basically just stating the obvious.
>I think the similarity of how the iWatch and the Android watches work is too similar to be a coincidence
Well, people already had a uncanillity similar experience to Android watches 5 or so years ago, by strapping an iPod mini to a wrist strap. It's a watch that talks to a smartphone and has a computer screen, so of course its similar in that, but that's inevitable. The kind of interface, the controls, the fashion styles for the straps and everything, and the internal design / sensors / etc are unique.
>Basically your story doesn't make any sense. The public story is that all Samsung knew was "Apple is working on a watch", and with that information, completely independently tossed together (with a little help from Google) a device that, in the Gen 2 version of Android Smartwatches, just so happens to work almost exactly like the iWatch minus the nub. The probably of that happen are only slightly less than throwing a bunch of parts into a dryer and at the end of the cycle getting a clock.
For one, the "almost exactly" is only in the sense that one car and another car do mostly the same things. The design, controls, software and everything is different, from the "nub" to the style choices to the sensors to the charging, to the e-payments, to the app selection UI etc. The Samsung version is sub par in every way.
>If Samsung developed the smartwatch based on nothing more than a rumor and just slapped it together, then they did one hell of a job because that's the template all new smart watches are currently following and they deserve a little more credit. (...) Samsung slapped together a watch based on a rumor, the gen 2 devices were pretty good and Apple simply went the direction with the idea that Samsung had pioneered.
What are those ideas again? Can you name one thing Samsung did that was a) non obvious part of a smartwatch, b) better?
> Neither. For one, it's obvious that any such products needs at least 1-2 years to design, manufacture prototypes, etc. Second, we've seen several previous exposes of how Apple developed new stuff (iPad was in the labs for 7-8 years, the iPhone the same, etc, and there have been galleries of the tons of prototypes they checked published). So, I was basically just stating the obvious.
Good, so then you must agree that Samsung couldn't possibly have just slapped together a design and manufactured hundreds of thousands of watches in a few months. Even Samsung must take time to bring a product to market. If you truly believe Samsung just craps out devices, then you're also claiming they're among the most efficient design, production and marketing organizations on the planet. Nobody would even come close.
> Well, people already had a uncanillity similar experience to Android watches 5 or so years ago, by strapping an iPod mini to a wrist strap.
Can you link to what you're talking about?
> It's a watch that talks to a smartphone and has a computer screen, so of course its similar in that, but that's inevitable.
I don't think it's inevitable or obvious at all. Given the instructions "go make a smart watch" I can think of half a dozen completely different ideas right off the bat, none of which are what smart watches look like or how they work -- I never would have required tethering at all for example. I personally think cramming down the pinch and swipe smartphone metaphor into a device that size is not a good solution, I think all of the competitors (except pebble) failed in that respect.
It's like if somebody told you to "make me a device that will transport me distances using an engine". While you could have come up with anything from a boat to a train to rocket propelled rollerskates, instead you and your competitor both "independently" arrive at solutions which are basically different trim levels of this year's Toyota Camry, except one has a stick shift.
Odds of that happening are close enough to zero to be effectively the same. So either Samsung has the best industrial espionage team on the planet (doubtful) or Apple just waited for the competition to jump first and then just followed the trendlines and produced a really polished as hell version of what they were fumbling around with (likely).
In fact, Apple could have copied and refined the Pebble instead and knocked it out of the park. By so blatantly copying what's going on in Android land, it leads to too many unfavorable comparisons. They could have completely broken away from that path Samsung has set and gone with a smaller, sleeker, more elegant device. By refining the Samsung template, Apple just leads itself to comparisons, even if the final product is super polished. Basically, if Apple was going to make a car, they needed to make a Tesla or an Ariel Atom, not a top spec Camry (with a stick shift).
> The Samsung version is sub par in every way.
On this we can completely agree. I'm not impressed with the Android smart watches at all. I don't see a good use for them, they're overpriced, underspec'd and don't provide me with anything I wouldn't rather just do with my phone (and in fact require my phone to be nearby anyway).
That's why I'm so disappointed with Apple's offering, even though it's just the Android watch polished to the n-th degree. In the end the whole direction is just a "meh" idea to me.
Imagine instead an Apple polish to a pebble style watch, no tethering required, all the watch faces and notifications and canned responses, week-long battery life, none of this swipe and nub nonsense, beautiful Apple design (Pebble watches all look like something I would have loved when I was 12, but not 40) and flawless execution.
What you're failing to understand is that I'm not saying Apple copying Samsung is bad because they copied Samsung (who gets credit isn't important), it's bad because, given a possible universe of ideas they could have followed instead, they copied a crappy design idea and then polished that turd until it shined. But it's still just a ball of poo.
>Good, so then you must agree that Samsung couldn't possibly have just slapped together a design and manufactured hundreds of thousands of watches in a few months
The "hundreds of thousands" is not an issue time-wise given their manufacturing expertise. It's the design, programming etc stage that takes time. I'd say they've spend a year or so. The first one (Gear) was using Android, and was mostly like a shrank phone, with not much thought. That the Gear 2 switched to Tizen shows that at the time they released the first they didn't have a long term plan nor had settled their basics, like OS choice.
There's nothing particularly tasteful or well thought out in either mockup. The circular display, for one, is limiting and too watch-inspired for use with apps. That's why both mockups just show a few basic functions.
But, really what "refinement of Samsung's ideas" or "copying"?
Most everything we've seen on the Watch (and Gear) were already out there in the rumors for the iWatch, years ago. Some pressumably leaked from Apple's tests too.
Samsung rushed ahead and did a (ho-hum) implementation of them, Apple did a more mature one. It's not like there's anything in Gear 1/2 that either Apple didn't already have in the iPhone or everybody was not already expecting in the iWatch rumors years before either watch was released.
Sources or guessing?
I think the similarity of how the iWatch and the Android watches work is too similar to be a coincidence. There's some cool software work on Apple's watch, and I believe it'll generally be a better product overall. But it looks just like something somebody would make after seeing the competition and iterating an improvement on it. That's my assertion and I'm going to stick with it until somebody proves me wrong.
> Second, Samsung only started on their watches when rumours of an iWatch pending had already surfaced
IIR that's correct. iWatch rumors started and Samsung tossed together the Gear to get it out the door first. Apple didn't ship and now we're on Gen 2 of Android watches while Apple releases a nearly identical product...even down to some fairly small use-case details. I'm not poo pooing the device, with Apple's polish and tight integration I'd call it a Gen 2.5 smartwatch. It looks good, and going old-school Blackberry with the knob as an input device is a good idea. It's probably a full half-to-full generation ahead of the current Android devices for very Apple-y reasons.
But there's very little new here, and more important it's not all that different. It doesn't look like an independently developed device. It looks like a particularly well thought out Android smart watch. Apple could have...should have...gone a completely different direction with the watch, but they didn't.
Basically your story doesn't make any sense. The public story is that all Samsung knew was "Apple is working on a watch", and with that information, completely independently tossed together (with a little help from Google) a device that, in the Gen 2 version of Android Smartwatches, just so happens to work almost exactly like the iWatch minus the nub. From needing to tether, to use-cases, to display turn-on when raised, etc. There's a million different directions each watch development effort could have gone, yet both efforts coincidentally independently arrived at the same conclusion...with both teams operating in secret, probably on opposite sides of the planet.
The probably of that happen are only slightly less than throwing a bunch of parts into a dryer and at the end of the cycle getting a clock.
If Samsung developed the smartwatch based on nothing more than a rumor and just slapped it together, then they did one hell of a job because that's the template all new smart watches are currently following and they deserve a little more credit. If they copied Apple outright, then there's some serious leaks in Apple's R&D department.
But neither of those cases fits Occam's razor -- there are no coincidences...the similarities are too strong. It's more likely Apple has been mulling around a watch for a while. Samsung slapped together a watch based on a rumor, the gen 2 devices were pretty good and Apple simply went the direction with the idea that Samsung had pioneered. The only other conclusion is that Samsung committed one of the greatest acts of industrial espionage since the Soviets stole the designs for the atom bomb.
Note: I don't know why you're getting downvoted, we're just having a civil discussion. People get so emotional around Apple's stuff.