Home / News / Mobile Phone Accessory News / Samsung Gear 2 and Gear Fit prices leaked, still too expensive

Samsung Gear 2 and Gear Fit prices leaked, still too expensive

Sam Loveridge

by

Samsung Gear Fit
Samsung Gear Fit

The Samsung Gear 2 and Gear Fit prices have been leaked online and they still seem far too expensive.

One of the biggest problems with the original Samsung Galaxy Gear was its sky-high £299 price tag that saw consumers completely turn off the Samsung smartwatch.

Despite rumours that the second-generation Gear 2 would be considerably cheaper than the original model, Samsung doesn’t seem to have learnt its lesson when it comes to smartwatch pricing.

According to notoriously accurate Samsung tipster, Sammobile, the Gear 2 will cost €299, which will equate to around £250.

The Gear 2 Neo, which lacks a camera and features interchangeable wrist straps, will apparently cost €199 (approx. £165), but a comment beneath the original Twitter post claims it will be priced at €279 (£230).

What’s particularly interesting is that the leak suggests the fitness-focused Samsung Galaxy Fit will also retail for the same €199 price as the Gear 2 Neo.

The device is mainly designed to be your fitness friend and only offers select smartphone functionality in comparison to the smartwatch Gear 2 and Gear 2 Neo duo.

To price it so high could alienate its potential market. It does have increased functionality over rivals like the Nike Fuelband SE, FitBit Force and Misfit Shine due to its in-built heart rate monitor, but doesn’t quite go as far as the Polar fitness watch alternatives to justify the lofty price tag.

Some may find the curved OLED display appealing, but that price tag may see Samsung having quite the hard sell – despite the initial excitement for the fitness band.

We’ve contacted Samsung to see if there’s any official information.

How much would you want to pay for Samsung‘s latest smartwatch line?

Read more: Samsung Galaxy S5 review – First look at MWC 2014

Rhyddin

March 5, 2014, 3:29 pm

I actually think £250 or £299 is pretty reasonable for what it brings and plan to buy one. Having had a Pebble until recently, and falling for the benefits and convenience of a smartwatch as a result, it is easy to put the price into context against the pretty, but considerably less capable, Pebble Steel, which sells for $250. Plus, and I know this is subjective, I think the Gear looks great in silver - or at least it will once I put a 'proper' strap on it.
I have given up wearing a premium swiss watch to move into the smartwatch arena and, having reluctantly paid nearly £300 to get my 'regular' watch serviced in the past, this seems like incredible value!

Darryl Hall jr

March 6, 2014, 3:29 am

I'll have to disagree. No companion device to a smart phone should cost the same as my note 3 especially since my note 3 does way more than all of those new Samsung wearables. Not to mention it needs blue tooth also. Do the math what would you buy gear 2 or note 3 for $299??????

chaosdefinesorder

March 6, 2014, 12:08 pm

Actually it is not the price that will put off most people, it is the fact that it is ONLY compatible with Samsung phones...

chaosdefinesorder

March 6, 2014, 12:11 pm

you Americans and your "phone costs $299" myth...

That is $299 upfront *on contract* plus the extra phone purchase cost built into the monthly payment. The phone itself actually costs ~$600 to $700. Can you buy the Note 3 for $299 SIM-free without a contract? If yes, THEN you can consider Gear 2 vs. Note 2.

Flipping that round, does the Gear 2 for $299 include a monthly fee?

Rhyddin

March 6, 2014, 12:18 pm

Thanks for the slightly condescending 'do the math' comment and overuse of question marks. However, your Note 3 didn't cost the same as a Gear - the network subsidised the cost. I would love a Note 3 for $/£299 but they cost more than that second hand on eBay! In fact, the list of the Note 3 is over £600 here in the UK and around the same unlocked on Amazon.com. There is no network to subsidise the Gear, because there is no contract to justify the subsidy (unless, of course, you buy it as part of a package with a new phone contract).
Plus, you're right when you say that it is a 'companion device', making it impossible to compare the capabilities of a smartwatch to the phone with which it is working. That's like saying the PS4 is better than one of the games which you can buy for it - the latter doesn't work without the former but, when combined, they are great!
I'm guessing you've not tried a smartwatch and don't see the point of them? That's fine and I was the same until curiosity got the better of me and I bought the Pebble but don't compare apples with oranges until you appreciate the benefits of both.

Rhyddin

March 6, 2014, 12:40 pm

It's inevitable really.
Their biggest hardware competitor in the smartphone market is Apple (I think?) and they have been using their products, with their familiar interfaces and iCloud interaction, to tie people into the their product family for years. They're brilliant at it!
The Gear (and the way it only interacts with Galaxy phones and likely works best with Samsung TVs with the WatchOn app) is a way for Samsung to start trying to do the same. Once you've invested in a Gear, that's you tied into Samsung for the next few years!

Caleb

March 6, 2014, 5:54 pm

I'm not familiar with € & £ so if they made it anywhere between $170.00 and $199.00 U.S.D then they could still make a killing in sales market and still get what they need back on the tail end as far as creating, marketing and selling their devices to optimally get them off shelves in a volume they've been looking for. Not to mention for every device that's bought which would be more than the original gear they'd effectively make that extra $100.00 back in no time.

Keith Brown II

March 6, 2014, 8:31 pm

I understand the marketing strategy completely. I am excited about the gear fit. My polar watch stopped working so I am holding off till the Galaxy gear comes out instead of replacing it. Used in conjunction with your phone it would do more than a polar watch just depends on the software used. The software should sync across multiple apps and these apps should have training app fit for both the novice and professional runners. The biggest thing to question is about the accuracy of the heart rate monitor as it is not a chest strap. Give me a heart rate watch that is accurate and consistent with USEFUL software-I would easily pay $150 maybe $200. If more than that I would invest in any numerous chest straps that you can purchase for $100 or less. Also would they work with gym equipment? Probably not. If they ask more than than this it better have more functionality such as monitoring sleep patterns, counting steps (my phone does this already), etc.

Volker

March 7, 2014, 9:35 am

I am a fan of the idea of wearable tech, but if I really think about it the usability of the gear 2 is rather limited. And for that the price is way to high.
I would rather go for the gear fit which I personally think looks better and doesn't try to do more than you will actually do with it. I think a price around 120 pounds would sound more appealing to me for the galaxy fit.

Darryl Hall jr

March 15, 2014, 11:42 pm

Sounds like you need to wait till the iwatch comes out. Then maybe you won't complain anymore!

Rhyddin

March 17, 2014, 3:05 pm

Who's complaining? iWatch? Did you even read my post?

comments powered by Disqus