Your Moto 360 may not get Android Wear 2.0

[Jeffrey]

​

If you're one of the earliest adopters, your Moto 360 won't get Android Wear 2.0 when it arrives in the fall. Yes, you'll have to buy a new smartwatch if you want that on-screen keyboard or third-party watchface widgets. It's uncertain what will happen to other older Android Wear devices, such as Samsung's Gear Live or the first ASUS ZenWatch, but there's a real chance that they'll meet a similar fate.

Google regularly ends major OS updates for Nexus devices after 2 years, and it's tighter control over Android Wear updates suggested that you'd see a similar schedule for wearables.
When it comes to a smartwatch, I think people will hold on to them as long as possible and feel there should be support as long as the hardware can handle it..

What are your thoughts?

Source

 

[johnomaz]

If they are doing it simply because of a time frame and not whether or not the hardware can run the software/new features, thats B.S. If the hardware won't be capable of running 2.0, then theres no way around it. I have a feeling though its because of just the time frame which pisses me off.

 

[FoxKat]

It's unfortunately an expected outcome of moving from an eternal function, telling time to multiple computer based functions. Wrist watches have been called timepieces for as long as they've been around, and for good reason... They were at least initially and almost exclusively designed to perform one primary function with a collection of secondary functions all tied to the same metric... Time, something that essentially is infinitely the same process forever.

With the introduction of smart watches it takes telling time (day/date/sun/moon), and adds an essentially unlimited array of functions, only limited by our imagination and the inherent limitations of the screen size, memory and processing power. Thing is, as these things advance the watch, which used to be a timeless piece of apparel has now jumped right into the planned obsolescence that is the computer world.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bkdodger]

This is what upsets me so much ...Moto you losing me


6S PLUS [emoji390]

 

[LoneWolfArcher]

As a 1st Gen 360 owner, I don't care. I love my watch and will continue to use it. Eventually I'll get a newer one that will have AW 2.0.

 

[FoxKat]

Folks, it's not Moto, it's the shift in technology. In other words it's inevitable.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bkdodger]

I'm not buying it ...sept 2014 and it's not two years old ...it can run 2.0 they just don't want to bother IMO


6S PLUS [emoji390]

 

[mountainbikermark]

I'm not buying it ...sept 2014 and it's not two years old ...it can run 2.0 they just don't want to bother IMO


6S PLUS [emoji390]

Welcome to the world of being a Samsung any portable device owner. We've been being abandoned before a device is outdated since before Android

Support Our Troops!!!
Beast Mode 4
<><

 

[Dusty]

I might be wrong, but wasn't it a known fact that the internals were mainly from the leftovers of an already 2 year old different mobile device at the time of release? I purchased the OG Moto360 knowing it wasn't going to be around long. As a matter of fact I got the Moto360 (2015) as soon as it was released and it's an all around better watch by basically any metric. I suspect I'll be looking for another watch in maybe two more years.

 

[FoxKat]

I might be wrong, but wasn't it a known fact that the internals were mainly from the leftovers of an already 2 year old different mobile device at the time of release? I purchased the OG Moto360 knowing it wasn't going to be around long. As a matter of fact I got the Moto360 (2015) as soon as it was released and it's an all around better watch by basically any metric. I suspect I'll be looking for another watch in maybe two more years.

Yes, the processor was not cutting edge at time of release and the manufacturer caught some criticism for being what people called outdated technology. Do I believe that the watch won't run 2.0? Well no. But what I do believe is that maybe it won't perform to expected standards and so releasing 2.0 on this watch could reflect negatively on the upgrade and cause negative press and disappointing performance. Essentially you could see either moderate to no performance increase or a result of greater demands even a possible reduced performance. This would not look good for either Motorola or Google.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Sajo]

It sounds like LG made a Twitter post stating that the original LG G Watch will not get it either, it's too old also.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Sajo]

I read that some folks are saying that older watches like the ones mentioned here are not getting 2.0 because they don't have a physical button, which will be used for "Back" functionality in 2.0. Maybe that's the reason, we can't run 2.0 on watches that don't have the physical external button?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[bkdodger]

I was looking at the demo for 2.0 didn't seem like anything our older watches couldn't run ...oh well we shall see once it's out and a hack to run on our older watches


6S PLUS [emoji390]

 

[mountainbikermark]

I read that some folks are saying that older watches like the ones mentioned here are not getting 2.0 because they don't have a physical button, which will be used for "Back" functionality in 2.0. Maybe that's the reason, we can't run 2.0 on watches that don't have the physical external button?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Apple developers implemented a back button capability in the form of a little arrow icon on their phones and tablets. I see no reason the same couldn't be done with AW. I have several apps on my S that have a translucent menu icon in the upper , or lower, right corner. Unless you look for it you will probably miss it, it's in the far corner but when tapped does function. The screen shot posted shows a back button in the upper right and menu in lower right. The S has a built in gesture for back by swiping up the evite screen but the developer here chose to use an icon instead because of scrolling within the app could take it back instead of scrolling down the page. Tizen uses HTML5 for apps such as this ,so though I don't know much about coding, I've been told adding features such as this is pretty simple to do and not data intensive.
The only reason I can think of why older watches might not be 2.0 capable is the strain on the cpu to do standalone tasks that the phone currently is the workhorse for now.
As far as a physical button, on the S1 it serves to go home , power on off , or sleep/wake and that's it. AW could easily take an Apple approach and use an icon for back without infringing on any patents.
Oops forgot the screen shot.

Support Our Troops!!!
Beast Mode 4
<><

 

[Sajo]

Agree 100% @mountainbikermark. There is no good reason Google couldn't incorporate a back feature for phones that font have a button....if that's even a reason for some phones not getting 2.0. My guess is they just don't want to waste the time. They want people to buy new watches, not keep wearing 2 year old watches. For me personally, I am not too worried about 2.0; it brings good features, but nothing I can't live without. I am not going to run out and buy a new watch just because of AW 2.0.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk