Android Wear, it’s time for a new name | Hacker News Reader

Android Wear, it’s time for a new name

blog.google

38 pointsAissen61 comments

Please, just deliver something that isn't just kinda shit first and then I'll be happy to hear about how you want a more coherent branding experience.

Android Wear Hangouts?

Not to be confused with Android Hangouts Wear, a completely different google product.

+1 to this.

I used a Polar M600 for the last year, and the long anticipated AW 2.0 update pretty much ruined it. After the upgrade, Play Music lost the ability to shuffle on-device content. The worst thing was that the watch was divorced from the phone, and my "google managed" gsuite account wanted to install Android Device Policy manager, which then wanted me to enable a PIN (annoying) and encrypt the watch (impossible), so I lost access to Google authenticatior on the watch, which was pretty much the only advantage it had over a non-Androidwear smartwatch.

I just replaced it with a Garmin that also does BT music (which can shuffle!), and I"m loving week-long battery life vs the 1-day at most life. The notifications work just as well. I'm beginning to think that full-blown Android (or WatchOS) is just a bad idea for watches, and companies like Garmin and Fitbit have a much better platform.

Third party google authenticator applications worked (and continue to work) really well on the Pebble as well.

The problem is that (AFAIK) there can be only one authentictor per account. So to move it to my watch, I'd have to remove it from my phone. And that makes me ... nervous.. The nice thing about the android wear authenticator was that it could be both on the watch and the phone at the same time.

I haven't set up the official Google Authenticator app in a while, but what I have done in the past is to seed the watch with the same value as the phone app. It marginally increases the risk, as I now have two devices that could be stolen, but the convenience was worth it to me.

That may require using a third party app on the phone as well as the watch, though. I'm not sure if the official Google Authenticator app still makes this practical.

Ah! That's a great idea. I had not considered that..

How is the Garmin SDK/app development ecosystem?

I didn't know they had their own app store until today (https://apps.garmin.com/en-US/).

Edit: wow they developed their own language called Monkey C for the platform? Speak about NIH, jeez. I thought making a new app store AND platform was brave enough, and they decided to throw a language on top of it. https://developer.garmin.com/connect-iq/monkey-c/

Wear 1 wasn't bad. Had some warts, but wasn't bad.

Wear 2 convinced me that the developers don't actually use the devices they're writing software for. I've lost count of the number of times I glance and my watch and discover the watchface has changed because something has rubbed up against the screen. Almost everything that happens as part of standard interaction with a device has been put multiple steps away from you.

The watch face "swipe to change" is one awful "feature". I use my watch less and less because it's so annoying to get to the information you need to.

That's probably one of the most annoying changes between 1 and 2. I've made it so only one watch face shows up.

There's no comma or other separator between "Wear OS" and "By Google", nor is the font size smaller for "By Google", so can we assume that the full name is in fact "Wear OS By Google"?

- "Check out the new Wear OS By Google watch from Samsung!"

- "The new ASUS Smartwatch powered by Wear OS By Google"

- "Wear OS By Google vs watchOS: 10 ways they differ, you won't believe #9!"

It just rolls off the tongue.

> so can we assume that the full name is in fact "Wear OS By Google"?

Well, this is the same organization that brought you "Google Play Music All Access"...

YouTube Red Music by Google

WTF YA'LL

Well, I expect most people to just say "Wear OS", which is, presumably, what they actually want. But trademarking the full name is probably quite a bit easier.

Wear OS sounds kinda silly in Mexico, and probably most Spanish-speaking countries. It sounds like "güeros", which is blondes in Spanish, and a (good-natured) euphemism for "gringo" in Mexico. It's difficult to take it seriously.

On a related topic, webOS is rarely spoken because it sounds like "huevos", eggs in Spanish and another euphemism for testicles. We know our TVs have it, but no one mentions it in a serious setting because everyone would think the TV is very brave.

Ars had an article[0] over the past few weeks about how Qaulcomm isn't creating new chips for Android Wear and therefore smart watches were on the decline / not improving.

Has anything changed? Are there non Apple competitors in the field?

[0]: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/android-wear-is-gett...

How would ars know what Qualcomm is or isn't doing? Last I checked they were not in the habit of taking out billboards announcing their current in progress parts and product roadmap. Or did I miss a radical shift in their marketing strategy?

The article talks about how many years it’s been since Qualcomm even announced a new product in that line. That’s 2 years without a press release while Apple and Samsung shipped multiple hardware generations in the same time, and Qualcomm’s product was based on an old design & fab process which was behind Apple when it first shipped.

Well, I'll grant you that they are not predictable and not always on the ball, but honestly that argument is thin. Extrapolating from just one data point is not even "anecdata", it is just noise.

I understand your point, but I wouldn't exactly call it only one data point. There are quite a few indications from the that there is relatively little interest from existing Android Wear manufacturers for new hardware.

Maybe this rebranding is a sign that Google is putting more effort behind it now, though.

I know the other replies explained a bit, but if anyone's curious for details, the Qualcomm processor in question is Snapdragon Wear 2100.

This was launched in February 2016 [1] and there's hasn't been an update since.

Hopefully with Google going through this rebranding exercise they know something about upcoming hardware that we don't. As it stands they've ceded their position for Android smartwatches to Samsung and Fitbit and will have some catching up to do.

[1] https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/02/11/snapdragon-wear...

The big difference is that Tizen with C/C++/JavaScript and Fitbit with SVG/JavaScript seem to be more user friendly (battery life, performance) than whatever Google is trying to do with fitting Android into a watch.

I haven't used one, but I really like the design concept that Samsung landed on with the rotating bezel. It's a bummer that Apple doesn't allow for any significant integration by 3rd party smartwatches on iOS, otherwise it'd be in the running for when my pebble dies.

On one hand, I'm still not sold on needing many "smart" features beyond fitness tracking and maybe TOTP codes. If I can't send texts or shop on Amazon from my watch I'm sure life will go on. But if you're missing out on smartwatch features, that makes the price hard to swallow compared to devices like the Amazfit Bip.

And this is Qualcomm's fault how ? Google decided to single-source and force all the ecosystem on one or two chips; they're not even trying.

> Are there non Apple competitors in the field?

I'm not in the market for a "smart" watch -- a cheap digital watch runs for a few years on a single battery, does most of what I want, and is indestructible -- but I would look to the companies making GPSes and heart rate monitors. Polar, Garmin, Suunto, and friends have been making durable and power-constrained devices for years. I think they will come at it from the right direction: rather than shoving in features and letting battery life catch up, they will carefully add features as allowed by battery life. I'm a bit surprised Google hasn't bought one yet.

Google has to be the absolute worst at putting together multiple brands + having a cohesive naming structure.

This happens across almost every single one of their verticals. It has to be with how they organized teams, right? I mean they have 3-4 different chat/talk programs on their own?

This reminds me of the 90s tech bubble when companies would spend 6+ figures on a name and fumble the execution. If Android Wear had good products nobody would think there’s anything wrong with the name.

90's? Still doing that in the 2010's!

https://techcrunch.com/2011/03/24/color-com-was-acquired-for...

Oh my god, TechCrunch's site is annoying. Wtf the fuck is with the check mark and removal of contrast when you get to the bottom of the article? It's like "Oh for the last 3 paragraphs we're going to make it slightly harder to read this."

Man why can't companies just let us read text without trying to make some big stupid extra functionality?

For me once I scrolled to the bottom it just auto-navigated me to some other article. Scrolling up didn't take me back. UX Fail.

I accidentally scrolled down too far to see what you were talking about and the article automatically closed. Guess I didn't want to read it.

I like the contrast removal - it warns me when I'm getting too near the arbitrary spot where scrolling down sudden becomes a redirect to a new page!

Mind, what I really like is not using the new TechCrunch site at all. Maybe I'll read a cached version if that plays nicely.

I was trying to get at how long we’ve known that it’s what you do when your senior management needs replacing, but you’re right that it’s been a continuous problem.

Unless this means that the next release of Android Wear won't be based on Android; it don't see the point of this rebranding.

To be honest, I thought that Android Wear was pretty much abandoned at this point.

It would be weird, but who knows ?

I think the real reason is provided in the article. iPhone users. They think using an "Android Wear" causes confusion.

I don't see it happening either : Wear's biggest issue in on the hardware side, not the software one.

> They think using an "Android Wear" causes confusion.

I see .. well at can at least tip my hat to Google on this, they tend to have a pretty open ecosystem.

They just uploaded a video as well.

"Introduction to Wear OS by Google Development"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=penkgJBJdv4

Everyone knows that Apple = iOS. Apple iPhone, Apple Watch, etc.

Not everyone knows that Google = Android because of all the other Android vendors. Google Pixel, but also Huwei Nexus 6P, Samsung Galaxy 9, etc.

Should have kept the old name.

I think the whole point is to get away from "Android." The average Apple (iOS) user will see "Android" and not bother to give it a try. They see "Wear OS" and they might try it. The audience is not just tech users.

The average Apple user is going to use the equivalent Apple product.

Wear OS by Google sounds like a big bag of nothing to anyone who ISN'T a tech user. At least using "Android" associates it with the platform.

Google clearly has lost direction here, anytime they start changing names around it's never good for the products. Yet Fitbit and Apple seem to have the wearables thing down.

I still can't get over the `.google` TLD.

That seems like a terrible name...

Being Google, I am betting that they reboot the complete userspace as they did with Brillo.

its renamed to WearOs if anyone came straight to comment section.

"Wear OS by Google" actually

Do you think this sentence by Google was intentional?

“In 2017, one out of three new Android Wear watch owners also used an iPhone.”

In that, they found the three people that bought an Android Wear watch in 2017, and one of them had an iPhone.

I think they mean that a third of the users but holy shit is that a confusing sentence. That's such a hilarious catch!

I get to see literally four lines of this article at a time, sandwiched between the largest fixed header and footer I have ever seen on a website.

One day somebody will figure out how to make those things overlap, and they won't have to write any content anymore.

No one ever stopped to realize that they were re-creating the browser toolbar hell.

And now, instead of us having to actively install them, they're just forcing them on us every time we go to a page! The EU and their stupid cookie warning laws don't help either. "Close this footer bar so you can see the next footer bar"

>The EU and their stupid cookie warning

Great in theory! Let people know what cookies are and the privacy implications.

Absolutely terrible in practice since any non-trivial site with user accounts will require cookies to use. It's as useful as the peanut warning on a package of peanuts (although at least that exists to save taxpayers money).

Actually, sites that use cookies purely for necessary parts of the site don't need a cookie warning. Eg an add to cart button.

There are a few categories of exceptions but again, I'd need to see an example of a non-trivial site that doesn't implement any kind of cookie that requires the warning and also doesn't have the warning "just-in-case".

Any site large enough to have anyone with the title that includes "Marketing" on the payroll means they'll be using some form of analytics and will need the warning.

It's horrible isn't it?! It's insane that companies thing they can just keep abusing our attention!

Let me help you out: https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/

Adding insult to the injury the thumbnails in the footer are 2800px-wide. The web developer used srcset but every resolution links to the largest image. And they're PNGs not JPEGs, despite the url implying otherwise. Together they weigh 19.5MB, >99% of total page size.

And that's why I use umatrix with everything off by default, and then I use ublock to filter out all of the other elements aside from the body of the page.

It's sad that removing the webdesigner's control is making the web readable again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com