When Google launched Android Wear, their initial launch partners were Motorola – who managed to corner most of the press with their circular Moto 360 – and LG, who showed off a not very visible ‘G Watch’ in a render. LG has since been playing catch-up. We got a slightly better look at the watch thanks to their Facebook page and Pocket-Lint got an even closer look last month and today via their Facebook page LG have shown off the LG/Google designed smartwatch, based on Google Now information, in a champagne white colour.

Apparently due to arrive in the second quarter of this year the LG smartwatch has been been given a UK price of under £180 but pricing for the rest of the world is unknown. Along with the information of the new colour today, LG have also stated the watch will have an always-on screen, is dust and water resistant (how much and to what rating we do not know at this stage) and it responds to the Google Now commands. There also appears to be a proprietary charging connection on the underside of the watch, which seems to be the case of all smartwatches announced so far (Samsung Gear 2, Pebble etc).

While the LG smartwatch may not have to designer good looks of the Motorola 360 it does have certain things in its favour. It is the watch that Google are working on with the manufacturer to produce a reference device for their Android Wear. Those of us who prefer Nexus devices for this reason will obviously be looking at purchasing this smartwatch.

How many others here will too? Does the champagne gold colour make this watch more attractive to you or is the stealth black the version you are after?

Source: LG.
Via: Android and Me.
  • LG
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Benjamen Meiers

So you found a few third parties that have it wrong. Congratulations. Now if you go to the organisation that actually published the IP code you will see who is correct.


OMG did LG PAY you for this CLEAR advertorial AUSDR-FAIL?! U mak me sik.


The champagne gold one does look interesting.
No way to judge how bulky it will look for real, though.


Check out the Pocket-Lint page linked in the article, it seems pretty thin compared to the other smart watches I’ve used.


I’ve been paying attention a lot lately to the watches people are wearing. It seems a lot of dress watches these days are really thick. The thickness of this seems a lot thinner than those I have seen around the traps (although this looks nowhere as good- the moto 360 on the other hand….)


The second last photo in that Pocket Lint article compares the LG to the second gen Samsung.

The LG looks less bulkier than the Samsung, but the LG looks less dressy than the Samsung.

If LG had extended the casing of the watch up to the face of the watch, I feel it would make the champagne gold one look more dressy.

Stephen Crisafulli

I think It looks good, though don’t know if I can pay upwards of $300 for somthing ill scratch and smash up, $150 plastic model for me please (pebble will do for now)


durability is obviously a massive requirement for these devices. I am surprised it’s not waterproof tbh. The pebble is


LG site says “water and dust resistance” but doesn’t give an IP certification


Yes. I figure if it was fully waterproof they would have said so.

Benjamen Meiers

I thought in America they can’t claim that an object is waterproof and that instead they need to certify it’s water resistance.


not sure on that one mate- if you find out let me know.

Benjamen Meiers

Sure mate. First of all, the IP (International Protection) code only has tests for water resistance in an effort to supercede waterproof claims and to provide customers useful information (such as water resistance ratings). Second would be that the ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) 2281 actually prohibits the use of the term waterproof with regard to watches.

I am not sure how this applies to smart watches as these codes are just for ‘watches’ and not any sort of specialised watch. So I am sure there could be some sort of technicality that would prove me wrong (as per usual).

Daniel Tyson

You mean IP = Ingress Protection?

Benjamen Meiers

IP doesn’t stand for Ingress Protection. But I can understand why one would think so.

Garfield, Andrew

Actually it does. And you’re an ID10T if you think it doesn’t, even the IEC documentation references Ingress Protection and makes no mention of ‘International Protection’ the only page that does is Wikipedia.

Further support: