Talk:Wear OS

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wear OS article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing: Software High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).

Watches

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Watches, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of watches on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WatchesWikipedia:WikiProject WatchesTemplate:WikiProject WatchesWatches articles

Cut down Android?

From their page "Do not install apps on the Android Wear emulator. The system does not support traditional Android apps and the result of running such apps is unpredictable." So we know it's not "Android compatible". It's not "Android", but probably a cut-down version. The hardware will run ARMv7, as Android is cross-platform, maybe I was too hasty in throwing x86 and MIPS out. Probably the quote is just because the screen is smaller and would obviously not handle normal Android apps. Might Dalvik be out? And ART in? Do we know for sure that most of standard Android, eg. bionic is there? Probably bionic yes, but Dalvik is overhead they might want to use the chance and get rid of. On the other hand the quote implies that you can try to install apps so much of the infrastructure must be there. But haven't seen for sure even that Linux would be there. Distributing the kernel under the proprietary license would be illegal (it might be an exception). comp.arch (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imagination Technologies (the owners of MIPS Technologies) and Intel are official partners, so I've reinstated MIPS and x86 in the infobox. --RaviC (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see online, it's really similar to normal Android 4.4 behind the hood. Some people have even got the Wear launcher on their phones. --RaviC (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, proves similiar infrastructure (Dalvik I guess and bionic), Android (super-set should be able to run code from sub-set, not other way around, still could add somthing and not be a strict sub-set). Still a sub-set (at least of the screen :) ARMv7 implies at least not a very slow processor. Anyone know how much RAM? GPU? Could most apps if useful on a smaller screen be adapted? comp.arch (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logo is out of date

The logo is out of date, see the main Android article for what it looks like and then "wear" in the same font is underneath. I was not able to find a good picture of it.Frmorrison (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Browsers (besides IE's Windows..) on Android Wear - minimum screen size

I just noticed that both the LG G watches in the article have "280 × 280 pixels". I put that in quotes as you can't multiply the numbers and get number of pixels. Putting a browser on a watch, especially a round one would be kind of silly.. but anyone know what the minimum screen size is in pixels? Firefox: "Display size (on mobile) must be at least 320 pixels high and 240 pixels wide". I was going to delete that as, if I recall, it's also the minumum size for Android and as Firefox only supports Android it seemed redundant.. All the square watches I've seen have been bigger, but it seems it is not guaranteed.. Does Android Wear come with a browser? Has anyone hacked them in? Would the usual supects not fit in memory?

However, I found someone runs Windows 95 on one..[1] comp.arch (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of all devices

What about a list of all devices with release dates and so on? --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Android Wear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209072904/https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/core/+/master/toolbox/ to https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/core/+/master/toolbox/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're missing something

I have a G-Watch R and it's showing Wear 2.9 (which I updated in the article), but it shows OS version 7.1.1, so it appears that at some point (which probably was Wear 2.6), each version would appear to have variants based on two different versions of the OS? If anyone can shed some light on the subject, it will be welcome. --uKER (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ticwatch

There are also cheap Wear OS watches, the Ticwatch E and S. Please could someone add them to the list of devices. https://www.mobvoi.com/pages/ticwatchse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiebally22 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Device list Wear OS versions out of date

On the list of devices, the Wear OS versions are outdated. This will be a constant issue as devices that updated to Android Wear 2.0, regardless of being on 7.1.1 or 8.0.0, will get updated to the latest 2.X version. At the moment, that is of course the Wear OS rebranding at 2.10. The full rebranding also only takes place on devices pursuing the 8.X Android update to my knowledge, meaning they have app version 2.10 but are still showing Android Wear logos and animations. My opinion is that the 2.X devices should all read 2.10 as it's an app update via Google Play, and there should be information regarding the watches pursuing the full Wear OS platform rebrand. Input would be appreciated as I intend to try and update & cite all of these soon. --Jsd45 05:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsd45 (talk • contribs)

Version number confusion

With the Wear OS re-branding, Wear OS reset its version number count, and I think that breaks the existing table somewhat.

Wear OS has two version numbers, the number for the Wear OS companion app, and the number the OS reports in the about screen. The Wear OS companion app version is pretty easy to track. It starts and 1.0 and increments up to (currently) 2.15. The Wear OS version number that you view on the watch "About" screen is different though. It originally matched the companion app number for Android Wear, but when the rebranding for Wear OS happened, the version number started over again at 1.0. So Wear OS App version 2.10 is "Wear OS 1.0," Wear App 2.11 is "Wear OS 1.1," etc.

I am not sure how we want to format this. For now I have the Wear OS number in the "notes" section, but that doesn't seem like great formatting. I think since the reset Wear OS version number is the one users actually see, that should have prominence in the table. Maybe we should break the table into two parts, "Android Wear" and "Wear OS"? RonAmadeo (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image Out of Date

The featured photo is of the Moto 360, which doesn't run Wear OS but the now defunct Android Wear. Also, the device's screen in the image doesn't reflect what the screen looks like on Wear OS. I would imagine this would be similar to using a Windows XP screenshot on the Wikipedia page for Windows 10. Do you think we should look into getting an updated photo showcasing the actual Wear OS screen and a watch running Wear OS? --Wizenthorne (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Wizenthorne: Used a photo of Fossil's Q Venture (Gen 4) from Commons. The watch screen shows the Wear OS logo, I think this should be better? Cheers. –Wefk423 (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring required regarding versions

This would be a large edit so I feel there ought to be agreement across multiple authors before we push it in.

Versioning is confusing in Wear OS, but it is further muddled by the manner in which it is presented in this article.

Overview of the reality of Wear OS versioning

Base System

e.g. [Android 8.x Oreo] or [Android 9.x Pie / System Version H]
this is the underlying operating system and base software required for the device to boot up and launch other services/apps
This portion of the system is "flashed" to the device via the bootloader/recovery/ota process, requiring a reboot for installation
This portion of the system is NOT installed/updated via the play store (such updates are installed while the device continues running normally, even if a reboot is sometimes required AFTER special case updates are applied)
updates arrive via the System Update mechanism, found in [Settings -> System -> About -> System updates], the watch will periodically check for updates itself and ask the user to install as needed (rebooting the watch to do so)
updates to the base system are generally less frequent than updates to the Wear OS app
if this type of update FAILS to install properly there is a high probability that the watch will be permanently damaged; failures may be rare, but a failure is expected to be irrecoverable

Wear OS

e.g. [Wear OS 2.2] or [Wear OS 2.3]
despite the naming convention, this is NOT the operating system (OS) but is instead a single application that runs like any other inside the actual operating system (OS)
This is the presentation layer of the watch, most notably the main user interface which presents a watch face and accepts interactive input (e.g. swiping on the screen)
this portion of the system is updated via the Google Play Store while the watch is running normally. Rebooting is nto required to INSTALL the update, though in some cases the update won't take effect until the next reboot
this portion of the system MAY be updated as part of an update to the Base System, but generally speaking whatever version might be built into the Base System is expected to be older than available updates in the play store by the time the base system updates are applied (as is true with Android phones)
updates arrive via the play store. default configuration for play store automatically installs such updates whenever the watch is charging (same as with android phones)
updates to Wear OS are generally more frequent than those to the base system
if this type of update fails to install properly there is little to no chance of permanent damage to the watch. recovery is always expected to work by simply uninstalling (if required) and reinstalling the update

Current article conflation

Android Wear versus Wear OS: version numbers

the actual version number system was reset when Google rebranded to Wear OS (from Android Wear 2.9 to Wear OS 1.0)
Wear OS 1.x had at least two contradicting version numbers ("Wear OS 1.0" reported itself, through the settings screen, as version 2.10; updates 1.1 through 1.7 all reported versions from 2.11 through 2.17 respectively)
Wear OS 2.x returned to a single version number for the Wear OS app within the system ("2.0" reports as "2.0" in the system, as with 2.1 through 2.3)
Proposal: prefix version numbers with one of three identifiers. For example: [AWV] for "android wear version", [WOO] for "wear os one", and [WOT] for "wear os two" (I will use this convention for the remainder of this entry)

Android Wear/Wear OS versus Base System: asynchronous updates

updates to the "WEAR" app and those to the Base System are NOT generally coordinated; they happen at different times
older base versions support newer WEAR apps. e.g. base version 7.1.1 supports all versions of the WEAR app from AWV-2.0 through WOT-2.1. This version history spans 16 versions of the WEAR app over 2 years and 7 months of deployed updates.
this all means that we need to list the WEAR version separately from the base system version. We already have a separate column for base system version, but this simple column approach proves wanting at times (e.g. the recent "System Version H" update, which is yet another name for base version 9.0; the article conflates WOT-2.2 with "system version h" despite many watches currently running WOT-2.2 and WOT-2.3 which have not yet been updated to base version 9 (aka system version h)

Proposal

WEAR app versions: as stated above, I propose we use a prefix to differentiate between three known groups of distinct version systems. you might not like the three i selected [AWV, WOO, WOT], but we should be able to agree on a set of three unique prefixes to use.
Refactor the version history table. perhaps breaking the table up into two tables, one for WEAR versions and the other for BASE versions. Ensure that BASE update notes/features are not conflated with WEAR version updates (as is the current problem with the "Wear OS 2.2" entry; i just added some text to highlight that the notes apply to the base version update rather than the wear os version update, but the core conflation issue appears to be a very common misunderstanding across the user base)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitflung (talk • contribs) 16:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]