Since this apparently stagnated over the years, it is understandable that there is a lot of enthusiasm on the new version of Wear OS to come later this year. That said, the announcement has always left many open questions, especially on which Smartwatches will receive the update. Asking these questions to rest, Fossil gives his own answer, but it is not the one that his customers may want to hear.
There is certainly a lot to wait impatiently with the next upgrade to wear the operating system. Developed in collaboration with Samsung and Fitbit, Wear OS is promised to obtain a new new user interface and a renewed focus on health and fitness, among others. And as with more recent and sophisticated software, it can also require better recent and better material.
Wear OS Smartwatches, unfortunately, do not suit exactly this description and fossil was too happy to share with CNET that he works on a SmartWatch premium that will do it. This probably means the most recent Qualcomm snapdragon wear platform, larger batteries and more biometric sensors. Unfortunately, this also suggests a higher price tag than the “Premium” description implies anyway.
Unfortunately, the company’s Expds also confirmed that existing Fossil Wear OS SmartWatches do not offer the new wear bone upgrade. This may be due to the fact that their hardware store is too old or because FOSSIL simply does not want to encourage the maintenance costs of upgrading all these older materials to new software and bugs that it could encourage. Anyway, it’s not going to happen.
This suggests that it would be the same story for all existing wearwear smartwatches on the market, many of which are running on older hardware components. Most of these are also manufactured by companies that are not well paid in maintaining smart devices and may not have the resources needed to push what could be a credit update of their wear.
More Stories
How Can Data Fabric Be Used To Improve Data Governance?
5 Easy Steps to Make a YouTube Outro
How to solve [pii_email_6156512824f342737f9c] error?