Feature Request: Samsung Watch Faces: Time for a Design Overhaul - A Pixel Phone User's Perspective.

[fwon]

It's disappointing that, despite Samsung's size as a technology company, their watch faces are among the most boring compared to those of other Smart watches. I would expect more innovation from a company that has a large user base for their Smart watches worldwide. To me, this feels like a disservice to their smartwatch consumers. 

Will they ever introduce or upgrade their watch faces anytime soon? One of the most frustrating aspects is that if you don't have a Samsung phone, you are limited in some functions of the watches, like the Samsung Health monitor. I use a Pixel phone, and I don't understand why there are restrictions on the Samsung Health monitor, especially since I am a consumer of their smartwatch for which I paid.

Does it make sense that there are limitations based on the type of phone one uses? Will there be any changes in the coming year that would allow all consumers to enjoy the full features of their Smart watches, regardless of the phone they use?

[realaud]

The restrictions on the health monitor are because it's proprietary to the Samsung ecosystem if you want all the features of the watch, you need a Samsung phone. If you don't want a Samsung phone, well, that's the functionality you give up.

As for the watch faces, you can design your own by picking a customizable watch face and adding what you want to it. You can also download watch faces from rhe Play store. If you don't like their boring watch faces and you chose to buy a Pixel phone, why not buy a Pixel or a Garmin watch?

[fwon]

I appreciate your response, but I find it important to clarify some points and address the tone of your message. The restrictions on the Samsung Health Monitor are indeed a result of Samsung’s proprietary ecosystem; however, my concern goes beyond understanding the reason for the limitation. The issue lies in the impact on consumers who invest in Samsung's smartwatches expecting a seamless and full-featured experience, regardless of their choice of phone. It feels exclusionary for Samsung to penalize users who do not own a Samsung phone, especially since the watch itself is a standalone product purchased at a premium price.

Your suggestion to simply "buy a Pixel or Garmin watch" disregards my investment in Samsung's ecosystem and the quality of the watch hardware itself, which I enjoy. My critique was directed at Samsung’s restrictive software policies, not at the hardware or the decision to use a Pixel phone. This advice comes across as dismissive and unhelpful when my intent was to foster a discussion about possible improvements in Samsung’s approach to their smartwatch software.

Regarding the watch faces, I’m aware of the customization options and downloadable faces from the Play Store. My critique centers on the lack of innovation in Samsung's default watch faces. For a company of Samsung’s stature, the limited creativity in this area is underwhelming compared to competitors. Simply pointing out the availability of third-party solutions does not address the expectation that a leading tech company should deliver better first-party options.

To summarize, my points were:

1. Samsung could enhance the user experience by removing unnecessary restrictions tied to phone brands.

2. The lack of innovative, engaging default watch faces does not align with the company's reputation for technological excellence.

I welcome further discussion, but I believe these are valid concerns that deserve thoughtful consideration, not dismissal.

[realaud]

Consumer who are impacted by the fact that the health monitor is only available on Samsung devices, should buy a Samsung device or another brand watch.  The ECG is only useful for those who already know they have AFIB.  It is well known that the health monitor only works in conjunction with Samsung phones, so those that really need the monitoring should make the appropriate purchases.

In regards to the watch faces, that's the way it is.  Stock watch faces are available and some are customizable within limits.  If you want something more customized or more to your esthetic, you go third party. You are purchasing a watch with the functions and faces that are available at time of purchase, not an unlimited catalog of watch faces.  The current stock faces appear to have something to appeal to most people.

Asking for Samsung to remove their proprietary restrictions is just inane, and quite possibly, other brands of phones do not have the hardware to support the function.  Why don't you ask those brands to upgrade their technology?

Samsung is not in the business of providing "innovative, engaging default watch faces", they are in the business of making the watch hardware, and they supply a variety of faces.  If you don't like what's provided, well, you can't please everyone. I, for one, think most of them are fine. Not aligning with their reputation for technical innovation?  Ha! Watch faces have nothing to do with technological innovation, and everything to do with esthetic and function. Do they depict the time? Yes.  Do they have the capability to add information widgets? Yes. Are they attractive? Some yes, some not.

There are many products on the market. One buys what serves their purposes at the moment. Presumably, when it comes to tech, people research what the limitations are and whether it will do what they want it to do, or they do not purchase it.  If people don't ask the questions to find out what something does not do, and then buy it anyway only to find out it actually does not do what they want it to, that's on them.

[fwon]

Thank you for your response. However, it’s clear you’ve completely missed the point of my feedback. My concerns were not about reiterating Samsung’s proprietary restrictions or justifying their limitations but about calling attention to areas where they can do better for their customers. Let me address your points systematically:

1. Health Monitor Restrictions

Your suggestion that consumers should "just buy a Samsung phone or another brand watch" is dismissive and ignores the core issue. Consumers pay for premium Samsung smartwatches expecting a full experience. Restricting features like the Health Monitor to Samsung devices feels exclusionary, especially when these features are advertised as key selling points. This isn’t about whether the restrictions are "well-known"—it’s about whether they are justified or fair to the broader user base. Your assumption that other brands don’t have the hardware to support these functions is baseless. The real question is why Samsung, as an industry leader, chooses to lock features behind a walled garden rather than innovating to make them universally accessible.

2. Watch Faces

Claiming that Samsung isn’t in the business of making “innovative, engaging watch faces” shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the smartwatch market. Watch faces are a core part of the user experience and serve as both a functional and aesthetic representation of the product. For a company that prides itself on cutting-edge technology, offering uninspired, default watch faces is a glaring inconsistency. While you may find them "fine," many users, myself included, expect more from a global tech giant. Dismissing valid criticism with "that’s the way it is" is not only lazy but also entirely unproductive.

3. Consumer Responsibility

Your argument that it’s on consumers to research products before purchase is simplistic at best. Samsung markets its smart watches as versatile, premium devices, creating an expectation of inclusivity and functionality across platforms. When those expectations aren’t met, consumers have every right to voice their dissatisfaction. Criticism is not a lack of research—it’s a demand for better value from a product we’ve invested in.

4. Feedback and Growth

Your condescending tone toward feedback underscores a fundamental misunderstanding of how businesses thrive. Every successful brand grows by listening to its customers. Constructive criticism isn’t “inane”; it’s what drives innovation in a competitive industry. My feedback is directed at Samsung to highlight areas for improvement, not at you. If you can’t grasp that, it might be worth reconsidering why you’re engaging in this discussion at all.

And finally, I don’t know why you’ve taken my comments so personally, but let me make this crystal clear: my feedback wasn’t addressed to you. If you feel the need to defend Samsung at all costs and cannot handle constructive criticism, you’re welcome to ignore my message entirely and move on to another discussion. No one is forcing you to respond.

[realaud]

Yes, Samsung markets their devices as versatile and premium, but that does not mean it can't also have some proprietary features. If it seems exclusionary, that's because it is.  The point being to sell Samsung phones in conjunction with Samsung watches. For those that don't need the particular features of the Health Monitor, they will find the watch perfectly functional any any other brand of phone.  If and when they ever get approval for the BP monitor, that will not work on other brands either, as that function would be integrated into the Health Monitor app.  Even if they opened up their app to be usable on any brand, those manufacturers would have to add the programming and hardware to make it functional on their UIs

Even if you are addressing a suggestion to Samsung, you posted on a public forum, so you cannot prevent anyone from adding their 2 cents, or be surprised that they do.