Samsung unveils Galaxy Gear 2 and Gear 2 Neo smartwatches

By on February 23, 2014, 2:15 PM
samsung, smartwatch, mwc 2014, galaxy gear 2, gear 2 neo

Mobile World Congress is now upon us and Samsung is wasting no time in showcasing their latest wares. The South Korean electronics giant on Sunday announced two new smartwatches at the annual trade show in Barcelona, Spain.

In a move that few likely anticipated, the wearables forego Google’s tried and true Android operating system for Tizen, the homegrown open-source operating system based on Linux. The announcement came ahead of the company’s Unpacked 5 event scheduled to take place on Monday where most believe we’ll see the Galaxy S5 for the first time.

The Gear 2 and Gear 2 Neo feature a 1.63-inch Super AMOLED display operating at 320 x 320 pixels, a 1GHz dual-core processor, 512MB of RAM, 4GB of on-board flash storage, a 2.0-megapixel camera (Gear 2 only), a heart rate sensor, gyroscope and a pedometer. Additionally, the device can connect to Bluetooth headphones and even be used as a remote to control televisions and the like via infrared.

Both watches feature improved battery life over the first-generation Galaxy Gear. Instead of having to charge the watch each night, Samsung claims the new devices can last two to three days on a single charge thanks to a 300mAh battery.

Elsewhere, the camera on the Gear 2 has been moved from the wrist strap to the main body of the watch. The Gear 2 Neo doesn’t feature a camera, a move that makes it about 13g lighter than its bigger brother. Considering the low resolution of the camera, that’s a tradeoff that many would likely be alright with.

Availability for both the Galaxy Gear 2 and the Gear 2 Neo is slated for sometime in April. Pricing, however, hasn’t been revealed as of writing.




User Comments: 11

Got something to say? Post a comment
OliTheG OliTheG said:

A WHOLE 2 DAY BATTERY LIFE? ON A FUZZY, UNSHARP SCREEN THAT YOU CAN'T LOOK AT OUTSIDE?

omg <mfw besterest watch ever

I love how everybody bangs on about smart watches as the greatest things ever, but they are literally 1200 times (when you compare battery life) worse than a watch you could buy anywhere for £20.

1 person liked this | 9Nails, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Fuzzy? It's resolution is better than that of a Nintendo DSi, and on a smaller screen. Used at the same distance it should look pretty smart. With the watch in outdoor mode and in direct sunlight the image is very easy to see and read.

If you wanted a watch just to tell the time, I'm sure there are better and cheaper alternatives. But I guess I agree with the sentiment of your message, that the Gear 2 watch is targeted for a narrow market.

All around, I think these are good improvements. IR control, bluetooth music player, pedomiter, and a 2 day battery are things that I'd use. But I'm wondering what the price will be.

1 person liked this | H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

It should have a flashlight at the front since that can be useful in certain situations when you have no other light source. Camera on a Smartwatch? No thanks, unless it's very compact.

1 person liked this | Nobina Nobina said:

I don't see a reason why should I have this. It sorta does stuff that smartphone does, but it's not as functional. I use wrist watch to look at the time, nothing less, therefore I have no use from this.

OliTheG OliTheG said:

Fuzzy? It's resolution is better than that of a Nintendo DSi, and on a smaller screen. Used at the same distance it should look pretty smart. With the watch in outdoor mode and in direct sunlight the image is very easy to see and read.

If you wanted a watch just to tell the time, I'm sure there are better and cheaper alternatives. But I guess I agree with the sentiment of your message, that the Gear 2 watch is targeted for a narrow market.

All around, I think these are good improvements. IR control, bluetooth music player, pedomiter, and a 2 day battery are things that I'd use. But I'm wondering what the price will be.

Oh yes, of course, but I'm comparing it to an actual watch. Where you can't see pixels if the time isn't 12,3,6,9 hours and 0,15,30,45 minutes.

The point is, is that people want a watch to tell the time. If it can't properly tell the time, then I just can't see it ever taking off (with the exception of the hipsters buying it if Apple release one, lets be honest)

SchrödingersCat said:

I make such little use of my cell phone as it is that I could see it being replaced by a slightly more competent version of these things.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Could be a better DPI, compared to modern phones. But wait, this way Samsung will roll out an update, call it a brand new product, with just an increased DPI.

Seriously, they are about to roll out S5, 5.25" with 2,560 x 1,440, and at the same time offering 1.63" device with just 320x320. That's pathetic!

And the images are fake, all photo-shopped, because in reality you will be able to see individual pixels pretty well.

1 person liked this | HaMsTeYr HaMsTeYr said:

320 x 320 on 1.63" Display = 277 PPI.

Galaxy Note 2 with 1280x720 on 5.3" Display = 277 PPI.

I don't know what you people are complaining about TBH.

That and every promotional marketing image of a mobile phone is more than likely a photoshopped image, that may not even be real, I.e. 3d Rendered.

I'm not sure if just hate for Samsung or just trolling.

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

Apart from telling time, what other useful things can it do? I guess we'll find out a bit more at 12.45 today.

Kibaruk Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

All in all this is a nieche product, don't expect everyone to like it or even try to like it.

As it is with a whole 2 day battery life this doesnt sound attractive at all, also a camera... why???!

Nobina Nobina said:

Could be a better DPI, compared to modern phones. But wait, this way Samsung will roll out an update, call it a brand new product, with just an increased DPI.

Seriously, they are about to roll out S5, 5.25" with 2,560 x 1,440, and at the same time offering 1.63" device with just 320x320. That's pathetic!

And the images are fake, all photo-shopped, because in reality you will be able to see individual pixels pretty well.

Did you check the screen size? 320x320 is low for a 4 inch display, but for screen this small it just about fits..

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.