Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Handhelds Toys Hardware

LG Launches Watch Phone In India 109

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the can-you-hear-me-now-kit? dept.
roh2cool writes "If you are a watch freak and also happen to be a fan of ultra rare (and expensive) gadgets, this might just interest you. The LG GD910 watch phone looks like a normal watch – except for the fact that it can double up as your mobile phone when needed. 'It is quite thin at just 13.9mm and packs in 3G and Video Calling capabilities as well. The phone is quite stylish and the front fascia is covered by scratch-proof tempered glass. It comes with a Bluetooth headset so you don’t have to keep talking like David Hasselhoff talked to his super-car KITT in the “Knight Rider” series.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LG Launches Watch Phone In India

Comments Filter:
  • And now ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Friday February 26, 2010 @06:17PM (#31292030)
    ... the obligatory Dick Tracy mention.
  • Ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)

    by the brown guy (1235418) on Friday February 26, 2010 @06:18PM (#31292042) Journal

    Phones in India are normally cheaper than here in Canada, but 49,990 rupees is 1138.21 CAD, you would have to be stupid to buy this phone.

    Anybody know when it comes to Canada?

    • Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thms (1339227) on Friday February 26, 2010 @06:28PM (#31292180)

      49,990 Indian Rupees mean = 1,084.26 US$ (according to xe.com) - no way the hardware or RD costs are that high, so they are milking it for the novelty factor for now. Seems India has a large enough middle class in search of status symbols now as well. But I wonder what technological breakthrough took so long that wrist-phones only show up now.

      The LG Product page [lge.com] mentions a 510mAh battery for 7-8 days no standby, and again no easily replaceable battery it seems.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by mdwh2 (535323)

        But I wonder what technological breakthrough took so long that wrist-phones only show up now.

        I remember as a child, "books of the future" showed people wearing small computers as their watches. They were almost right, except it was the phone that turned into a computer, not the watch.

        Even when the technology can make powerful computers the size of the watch, I think many people would still rather have something with a larger screen/keyboard size, that they can still carry (i.e., a phone). Indeed, it's not u

    • by Arthur Grumbine (1086397) on Friday February 26, 2010 @06:31PM (#31292216) Journal

      Phones in India are normally cheaper than here in Canada, but 49,990 rupees is 1138.21 CAD, you would have to be stupid to buy this phone.

      And even stupider to host your website on it...

    • Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)

      by camperdave (969942) on Friday February 26, 2010 @07:02PM (#31292554) Journal
      People are willing to pay 20 times that for a watch that does nothing more than tell the date and time [rolex.com].
      • by jd2112 (1535857)
        The purpose of owning a Rolex is to make a statement: "I am better than you because I have so much money that I can spend thousands of dollars on a watch that doesn't tell time any better than a $25 Timex".
        • Re: The purpose of owning a Rolex is to make a statement: "I am better than you because I have so much money that I can spend thousands of dollars on a watch that doesn't tell time any better than a $25 Timex".

          Oh, that's probably the intent, but the REAL statement is usually "I have a higher credit card balance than you, because I spend thousands of dollars on a watch."
          • by jd2112 (1535857)
            Intended message: I have a lot of money.
            Actual message: I either have an obcene credit card balance or I have a lot of money but no financial sense. Either way I will probably be bankrupt in the not-too-distant future.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Timex watches cost $30.. and yet there are people who buy Rolexes at over $3000 ... You dont call them stupid.. BUT someone who wants to buy a very expensive phone is stupid ??

      Indians spend a lot on phones. Rs. 10,000 phones are common - and iphone costs Rs.30,000 ($800). So... a $1200 phone is not exactly completely messed up.

    • According to the LG India page http://www.in.lge.com/Product/Products-Details.aspx?cat=368&pid=9636&subcat=Watchphone&parent=Mobile%20Phone [lge.com] it costs 39900 INR i.e. ~870$. In actual stores it would be cheaper though, due to discounts.
    • 1. You would have to be stupid to buy this phone.

      2. Anybody know when it comes to Canada?

      Yeah, I would have rated that "Funny" too.

      BTW if you want the same kind of phone for more than $1,000.00 less, look at this
      Samsung knockoff. [goodsatdeal.com]

  • wow (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    that's almost $1,100

  • is a netbook built into my pants and an mp3 player built into my shirt.

  • something that expensive, hanging from my wrist and exposed to all sorts of bang ups? no thanks, i'll be wearing it, like all watches, on my belt loop. Why people don't do this i'll never know (bad eyesight, being the one exception)
  • No, that is not stylish. It looks like every other watch/gadget combination.

    It's ugly. Just like all the others ever have been.

  • Nice but... (Score:3, Informative)

    by aBaldrich (1692238) on Friday February 26, 2010 @06:24PM (#31292122)
    It costs over one thousand dollars. And, who wants video calls in such a tiny screen?
    Just by googling "watch phone" I found many [surprisinggift.com] different [chinagrabber.com] waistphones for US$ 250 or less.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      ... And, who wants video calls in such a tiny screen? ...

      Honest, it's the small camera in this video watch. No, really, it's bigger in person.

    • by edxwelch (600979)

      A better question would be "who wants video calls?"

    • by Maavin (598439)
      A waistphone? Quit uncomfotable to read..
      They are still researching a material for the strap to fit US waist demands! :)
    • There was a fad over those in China some time ago... What's funny, they're all made with the same ARM platform, and run a hacked WinMo... Most of 'em have dual SIM cards and TV!
  • by Anonymous Coward

    According to Engadget, it's five hundred quid: http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/16/lg-gd910-watch-phone-review/

    ...which they relate to being a more humble $808 US. Significantly better than the Indian price.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sznupi (719324)

      ...which they relate to being a more humble $808 US. Significantly better than the Indian price.

      The dirty little secret of anything tech related is not only that, generally, the more poor the place the bigger the margin; also differences actually increase with the baseline price of an item.

  • Like the article says, the wish was for the phone being 20k instead of 49.9k. They have it wrong - once they get the bill from their webhosting company, they will be happy to have something left with to buy the batteries for the phone. The host is dead.
  • by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Friday February 26, 2010 @06:33PM (#31292256) Homepage

    Slashdot has done it again!

    • Even CorelCache and MirrorDot have the 404 page. :)

      Google's cache has the text, and it's all in TFS.

      Here's the product page [lge.com], quad-band. Google Shopping says these are $1200.

      I'll buy one just as soon as they come with a Microvision display.

  • I've seen watch phones coming out of china for years now.

    Normally the big firms innovate, and china copies, not vice versa.

  • At 12:00, go to the dollar store, find the biggest one dollar regular watch with a band they have. Now buy one buck worth of velcro strips in the same store. Velcro your regular phone to the front of the watch. That leaves three bucks for lunch. Show off to your buds at work all afternoon your new high tech wristwatch cellphone ;)

  • by Dunbal (464142) *

    Scratch your head and wonder why these things are being sold in India, Japan and China and not the US...

    But remember, the US is still #1!!!! Guys? GUYS???

  • If the manufacturer itself sugests that you're better off with a Bluetooth headset, what exactly this phone gives in comparison with "normal" one kept in a pocket / bag? Except bringing back problems with the skin on one of yor wrists...

    PS. And since this is /., the summary has wrong reference - it's like in Babylon 5.

  • It comes with a Bluetooth headset so you don’t have to keep talking like David Hasselhoff talked to his super-car KITT in the “Knight Rider” series.

    What's the point of that? If I'm buying a rare and expensive watch-phone, I want people to know I'm the uber-geek, dammit. I don't need no stinkin' Bluetooth headset.

    • I thought David Hasselhoff references were voted off this site? Or was that the Magnum PI / Matlock Grudge Match site?
      • No that was Macgyver for making a solar powered watch out of a toothpick and a stale marshmellow.
  • This place [iwantoneofthose.com] has something cooler already (in the UK at least) Just insert your SIM card, and away you go... Better price too... It also has built in mp3/video player, and a camera...

  • Decent idea (Score:5, Informative)

    by Andtalath (1074376) on Friday February 26, 2010 @06:45PM (#31292380)

    The phone on your wrist is a decent idea which is severely flawed for several reasons.
    1: Extreme lack of space for all that needs to go in it.
    2: Lack of space to dial numbers.
    3: Kinda annoying to charge, especially due to the fact that it will need to happen often.

    Also, I fail to see how this is newsworthy, dealextreme.com offers several watch phones.
    For instance: http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.13058 [dealextreme.com]

    Also, the link isn't only slashdotted, the page is even suspended for using to much bandwidth.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)
      These watches have been out for a couple of years. The one described seems a bit thinner, but that's about it, and the price seems ridiculous. I think I might buy one through the link you provided ... it looks awesome. The hard buttons on the band really put it over the top.
    • by sisinka (916373)
      Well, I am using a wristphone for 2 months now. An old dream turned true, so to say.
      It is this chinese thing, sports only GPRS, but was for about 200 Euro, which is quite a standard price for a phone here in Czech republic.

      Calling through BT headset is OK, texting letter by letter on the touchscreen through letter recognition was a pain to learn, but now it's quite fine, though slower, and I never wrote no SMS-novels. I had no problem whatsoever with dialling numbers.

      The battery holds 1 or 2 days, be
  • ...someone would have come up with a shoe phone [wikipedia.org]!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 26, 2010 @06:56PM (#31292510)

    When your website in India gets slashdotted and you call tech support, who answers the phone?

  • I'm the sort of watch freak who doesn't like electronic crap in my watches.
  • Who wears a watch? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PhantomHarlock (189617) on Friday February 26, 2010 @06:59PM (#31292544)

    There needs to be a slashdot poll to see how many people still wear watches. It has to be a dwindling number. There's a clock on my celphone, there was a clock on my pager, and in the 80s I was young enough to not have to give a crap about the time of day. So I've actually never worn a watch, except for a brief period when I enjoyed owning a few pocket watches, before they were accidentally put through the washing machine.

    Who would want to wear a watch even if it was a cel phone? It's not like you can have a smartphone-sized display on it. Since my phone is also my portable web and email browser these days, it would be kinda...minimalist. A watch in the age of portable electronic devices is simply redundant.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by aliquis (678370)

      Why wear a watch?

      Well, if the watches isn't a reason enough of their own:
      * Urwerk UR-202 [youtube.com]
      * Gerald Genta Arena Metasonic Sonnerie [ablogtoread.com]
      * Mr. Jones The Accurate [watchismo.com]
      * Or say Harry Winston Ocean Project Z6 [watchluxus.com], but now when I just checked there was also a new UR-203 [watchluxus.com] .. Maybe the UR-202 will get cheaper now? Not that it makes a difference.

      What about a watch being one of the few jeweleries for men?

    • A poll would be useful. There are lots of different preferences than yours, such as wearing one for fashion, convenience (flick of the wrist rather than fishing a phone out of your pocket), or availability - there are times that I can't have my phone such as at work or when I leave the country (no world phone).

      And hey, nudists may want phone connectivity too.
    • I can tell the time with a quick flick of my wrist and a glance while you have to pull your phone out. Then again maybe you're part of the generation that always has their phone out anyways, compulsively tweeting and texting.

      • And I can look at where in the sky the sun is. Its even faster once you get good at it.
        • by TheLink (130905)
          > And I can look at where in the sky the sun is

          Doesn't work in Manchester, UK.

          Yes I've been there. You only see the Sun at the news-stands, and the day before your final exams...
        • by cheros (223479)

          I actually know more or less the time of day, plus/minus half an hour. I have no idea how, but it's something I've had for years (including the habit of waking up just BEFORE the alarm goes off - but only if I set it - duh :-)).

          However, I wear a watch, despite having a phone as well - it's simply faster to get a time/date from an analogue device that has only one, fixed location and mode..

    • by mdwh2 (535323)

      I wear a watch so I don't have to dig around in my pocket or bag for my phone just to quickly glance at the time. (Or have to get my phone, if I'm at home, which may be in a different room.)

      Also it still works when my phone has drained its battery because I forgot the regular recharge it needs. And for people who ever go swimming, there are obvious advantages there too.

    • by Judinous (1093945)
      I wear this [thinkgeek.com] watch from Think Geek, because you always seem to forget your flash drive just when you need it most. It also means that I don't have to wear a "geek badge" flash drive lanyard while I'm at work.

      Also, it's a great conversation-starter. No, I don't mean that I go around showing off my nerdy flash drive watch. If you are wearing a watch, inevitably you will be approached by people who have forgotten their time-telling device of choice. I've made a few good friends that way.
    • by izomiac (815208)
      I would imagine that cellphones won't replace watches for the same reason that the wristwatch was developed in the first place. Pulling a pocket watch out is annoying, and I can't imagine a cell phone is much better (especially since you have to do something to activate the backlight).

      Watches are also a more mature technology. Many are waterproof, and most are more durable than a cellphone. Battery life is a couple orders of magnitude better, and they're next to impossible to lose. Furthermore, a wat
    • by metlin (258108)

      There needs to be a slashdot poll to see how many people still wear watches. It has to be a dwindling number.

      Going by the increasing number of fans at places like TimeZone [timezone.com], Watchuseek [watchuseek.com], and Styleforum [styleforum.net], I would say that it's not.

      Besides, a lot of folks do not wear watches for time, but more as a piece of jewelry. Besides, a good watch goes with a good outfit -- there is no denying the aesthetic value of a watch.

      I also travel and move around between time zones a lot (i.e. multiple times a week). So, for one,

  • by DrBuzzo (913503) on Friday February 26, 2010 @07:03PM (#31292566) Homepage
    Actually, there have been a number of "watch phones" and watch communicators over the years. In the 1990's, a few companies made watches that were alphanumeric pagers. Microsoft tried to create "smart watches" that received news feeds. There have been several phone watches CEC Corp in China made one about a year and a half ago. Before that, Sanyo had one sold in Japan and Korea. AT&T wireless even offered one for a while a few years ago. Just look at Google Shopping. There are many made by various outfits: http://www.google.com/products?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=Cell%20Phone%20Watch&ndsp=21&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=if [google.com]

    The problem is that it's just not a product that really sells well. Most of the big manufacturers pretty much abandoned the idea because it just doesn't work that well as a phone or a watch. A watch is good for telling time, but it's generally fairly small for having buttons to dial with and it's too small to put a descent speaker in. If you make the watch bigger, it becomes cumbersome.

    A watch is a bit difficult to hold to your ear, which means you either have to make it a speaker phone or use a headset. A wired headset is going to defeat the purpose of a wrist phone, but a bluetooth headset might work. In that case, you have to ask why not just put the phone in the headset. A watch also doesn't have much room for a battery.

    That's really the problem. It's been technically possible to put a phone in a watch for a while, but it doesn't make a great place to mount a phone.
    • You know, I'd easily pay $200 right now for a watch that uses a BT connection to talk to my phone. When my phone rings, the watch tells me who's calling. I'd also be able to use a button to silence my phone. That's it, that's all it'd have to do. (I'm assuming I'd have to charge it less frequently than every 3 days.) Bonus if it could change my music selection and show me what song it is.

      Any more complicated than that, like you were getting at, and you're just getting silly for a watch.

  • Better website (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
  • das (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    slahdotted

  • by afabbro (33948)

    ...what is the migration path for my legacy CASIO watch data!?!?!?

  • $1100 for a wrist decoration in India? It made me think of the scene in one of the Aubrey-Maturin novels where Steven gives an Indian girl some silver bracelets and gets her killed.

  • by CuriousGeorgeIII (1175615) on Friday February 26, 2010 @10:00PM (#31294106)
    I fully expect Apple to release an iWatch. Something with a super high resolution 1/2 inch screen where I can read graphic novels, listen to mp3's, watch high definition movies, while talking to grandma on the phone and swaping recipes with her online because I deserve to be one of the elite. Oh yeah, and it comes with a minature black turtle neck and levis case so I don't scratch the screen.
    • I fully expect Apple to release an iWatch. Something with a super high resolution 1/2 inch screen where I can read graphic novels, listen to mp3's, watch high definition movies, while talking to grandma on the phone and swaping recipes with her online because I deserve to be one of the elite. Oh yeah, and it comes with a minature black turtle neck and levis case so I don't scratch the screen. (Score:2, Funny)

      Aumsingly people complain about how much the iPhone is mentioned on this site.

  • by fly1ngtux (1504905) on Friday February 26, 2010 @10:46PM (#31294366)
    As the link posted here is dead, I googled for it and found this: http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/16/lg-gd910-watch-phone-review/ [engadget.com]
  • It is really a very good news!! There is a huge demand of mobile phones in India. Even I am planning to buy such a phone. http://ezinearticles.com/?Virility-Ex-Review---Does-Virility-Ex-Enlargement-Pills-Really-Work?&id=3476515 [ezinearticles.com]
  • 'It is quite thin at just 13.9mm

    That might be quite thin for a cell phone, but over a half inch is really thick for a watch. And the cell phone has pretty much replaced the watch, I doubt that trend is going to reverse itself. There are too many functions of a modern cell phone that wouldn't work as well if it were strapped to your wrist (camera, texting, showing someone a picture, etc.)

EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER

Working...