LG G Watch

LG has spilled the details on pricing and official availability of the G Watch, its first Android Wear watch — it will set you back $229 from Google Play, and will ship out to buyers on July 7th. When the G Watch goes on sale later today in Google Play it will actually be a pre-order, holding your place for when the device finally ships out. If you missed our earlier coverage on the G Watch, we have a full list of specs and even more pictures and details available now.

If you're still spinning from all of the Google I/O news today, be sure to read through the backlog of great posts at our Google I/O 2014 page.

 
There are 61 comments

synchronous says:

$229 ? Das it mane, would rather buy a moto g

Posted via Android Central App

And strap it to your wrist?

med322 says:

Das it mane!

MetalMike901 says:

True, but the moto g may be a bit much for some, on the arm. But you could make it work! ;)

Posted via mostly ghost taps on OG N7, in the Android Central App, therefore posts may not be my own.

JFMobile says:

Smart watches can't be that expensive to make right? Why is it the same price as the Nexus 7? I find that unfair. $199 would have been acceptable at the least. I would have priced this at the most $149.

codeda says:

I thought the smaller the parts, the more they cost. Reason why smart phones cost so much more than tablets ( minus the cellular chip). Am I wrong? Any way 229 is a good price compared to the other offerings out there.

Posted via Android Central App

Impulses says:

Most of the parts in a phone and tablet are the same exact size, minus the larger battery/screen. Phones cost more cause there's a few pricier components (cellular radios, better cameras) and because the industry model for selling phones has been screwed up for a long time... Ultimately the BoM or cost to produce them is similar tho, but things like an aluminium body definitely pump up the cost too.

DroidOn says:

I want one! But I will not pay more than $100-$150 for it. I guess I'll have to wait a few months until they realize they aren't able to sell enough at the current price, and drop the price to what I (and probably a lot of consumers) am willing to pay.

Posted via Android Central App

Devin Call says:

It's easy to compared these devices to a phone but I think that's a mistake. They're "watches" and should be compared to other watches. A standard analog watch with some flash can cost $100-$300 and all they do is tell time and maybe the date! Though smart watches are integrated with your phone, they're still just an extension of it which I love. Realistically, watches have small faces/screens making them hard to do anything on, so using them as a dedicated device becomes troublesome. I've had a Sony SmartWatch 2 for over a year and can't imagine not having it! I'm excited for the future of these devices and believe they shouldn't be compared to anything but themselves. The real question is how much are you willing to spend? I think $230 is a little much though.

The gear live at $199 looks like the watch for me.

kochjm says:

+1

rampage1979 says:

The battery on the gear live is also smaller then the g watch so im not sure yet need to see battery life tests.

Posted via Android Central App

NickLippert says:

Smaller battery and more pixels, I wonder what actual battery life will be like.

It's amoled though so if you can keep the screen dark... Granted with mostly Google elements this may prove difficult...

mintvilla says:

So its more than the sammy, has a lower res screen than the sammy, and lacks the heart rate monitor.

This is a tough choice, as it has the bigger battery and i'm assuming faster processor.

I wanna preorder one today (as i dont like round watches as i know 90% of people will wait for the moto 360)

Might have to wait for reviews before purchasing.

youareme7 says:

no impulse buy for me, i'll wait until the 360 comes out to decide on an android wear watch. i wonder why the samsung is 30 less?

On2Vegas says:

One factor may be that because of Samsung's sheer size and production volumes, they can afford to take a smaller profit per unit sold.

JFMobile says:

And the fact that the Gear 2 Neo and Gear Fit are also $199.

flychinook says:

I'm guessing it's because a good bit of the r&d costs have already been covered by the previous iterations of the Gear watches.

lindseybp says:

This should have been $199. $229 is enough to make me just wait for the Moto which hopefully will be in the $249 range. I think $199 is the right price point for the LG and samsung. A lot of people will just go for the samsung because it's $30 cheaper.

I think realistically the Moto360 will be $300-$350.

NoNexus says:

+1

lindseybp says:

thats my fear. trying to be optimistic though!

thatguy97 says:

If a smart watch cost more than my tablet I'm not interested

Posted from my Nexus 7 2013 or Samsung galaxy S5

Impulses says:

I doubt they'll go as high as $350, specially being late to the party. I wouldn't pay over $100 more for the roundness anyway... $250-300 and I'm in, tho $300 might make me think twice, specially if it's larger. The black model looks fine on small wrists tho, silver one looks more blingy, check out the Verge's pictorial.

REMINDER....

Are you really going to get over 200 dollars worth of use out of this?

Ask yourself this before you buy!

Posted via Android Central App

SSmaster says:

I most definitely think so. Got so much use out of my Pebble and this can do a lot more.

Uncle Louie says:

Absolutely. I've easily gotten that much use out of my $150 Pebble, and my $229 MetaWatch before that.
Having said that, $229 seems a bit much nowadays. The Samsung looks more robust, and is $30 cheaper.
Posted via Android Central App

fuzzylumpkin says:

So probably £199 then seems a little pricey... Especially considering the gear live is cheaper and has more features.

Posted via Android Central App

wunderbar says:

the bigger battery + lower resolution screen might actually mean significantly better battery life than the Gear Live. That alone might be worth the extra $30.

Tough call either way.

duoFurious says:

didnt even think about that...the lower res screen could be better. Battery life will be huge, however gear live has bluetooth LE and so far this does not, or have not seen it confirmed. Would that impact battery life if they connect via bluetooth?

wunderbar says:

While i'm not 100% sure I believe that Android introduced support for Bluetooth LE in 4.3, which is what Android Wear requires.

My guess is that LE is a mandatory item for these devices.

NoNexus says:

IPS screens take more power to run than AMOLED

flychinook says:

Play store specs for the G-watch specify Bluetooth 4.0 Low Energy.

jayjay234 says:

MMmmmm 2 more hours of battery life? Lol

Posted via NEXUS 5

duoFurious says:

bluetooth LE would only impact battery by that little?

youareme7 says:

WE GET IT. YOU DON'T LIKE THE BATTERY LIFE. DON'T. BUY. ONE.

duoFurious says:

im not upset, im curious on if its an important detail, when considering what to spend that kind of money on.

youareme7 says:

i was replying to the other guy that's been bitching about the rumored battery life in every post about smartwatches today. i'd be willing to bet that the lg uses LE even if it's not listed on that one spec sheet

duoFurious says:

oh ok. i was questioniing it because of the small difference in battery. so for example, 100m difference could sway the difference if it had no LE, maybe? idk. but thats why i ask.

rovex says:

Resolution will have minimal effect, the extra 'power' needed to drive more pixels on something like this is minuscule, remember its not running 3D graphics and physics processing, its just a hardware accelerated 2D interface.

duoFurious says:

another valid point. however there would be some processing perhaps on how far apps get integrated for example maps showing mapping/directions in a crowded city may need some rendering or perhaps show street view. not sure how much 3D is really used there but may draw extra.

More than Samsungs. Sorry LG. I would go with Samsung and it's heart rate monitor, even with 100mah less.

shadowy says:

Samsung 56.4mm tall, LG 46.5mm is enough on its own to make me prefer the LG, Samsung too tall for my wrist.

Posted via Android Central App

aitt says:

I really can't believe LG or Samsung didn't use their curve screen for these. Had LG done that I probably would had considered it more.

Posted via Android Central App

Impulses says:

That'd be interesting, though I dunno if it'd really be any more ergonomic. I have skinny wrists ands the top of them is still relatively flat... I guess a curved screen/back might actually work better on a larger watch for someone with burlier/curvier wrists.

ameadows252 says:

The Verge has the G Watch shipping on the 2nd. Are you guys right, or are they?

bez54 says:

Can UK Alex chase up the UK price please? For both watches. Come on mate you've gone quiet? Or are you still in shock?
Posted via Android Central App

fuzzylumpkin says:

I hate to say it, but plus one!

My guess is:
G watch £199
Gear live £179 maybe £189

Posted via Android Central App

cwmont13 says:

LG's setting this up for failure before a person can even buy one. Everyday buyer's are very price conscious. Especially on items like this that some will not consider an essential item but rather the newest cool thing. To them the Samsung will be the choice because it's cheaper. They won't be spec junkies, they'll just care that it works.

LG WHY??? SMH

From the Death Star using my LG G2

fuzzylumpkin says:

If they do want to be spec junkies, they'll still go for the gear live

I'm not a Samsung fan, but it's more for less.

Posted via Android Central App

flychinook says:

The fact that Beats Headphones exist tells me you're wrong.

tomh1979 says:

$229.00 for this, yeah i'll pass and keep waiting for the 360 if i'm going to pay a premium pricing.

Akcharlie says:

Why don't these Android Wear watches come equipped with a front face solar panel like my Casio Pathfinder? It'll greatly help with the battery life???

Posted via Android Central App

Impulses says:

It wouldn't, those panels aren't very efficient and it would barely contribute to it's battery life. Even a panel the size of your hand wouldn't make a significant dent, specially in actual use and not just sitting there pointing at the sun... Take a look at the specs ands charge times for some of the larger (tablet sized) panels they sell for charging phones/batteries when camping etc.

Rox598 says:

That price point is just stupid

Posted via Android Central App

John Seaber says:

I have a one plus one purchase invite for sale!! email me @ jseaber22@gmail.com if interested

lindseybp says:

Wrong thread dipshit. Go to the for sale thread in the forums.

NoNexus says:

Yeah, let's pay for an invite to a POS phone...

Cubfan says:

Looks like I'll be buying one of these when my local Sams Club gets them. 3 month return policy ought to get me to the next version just fine.

lindseybp says:

Ha! Classic!