AT&T reveals pricing for Galaxy Note 3, Galaxy Gear smartwatch

AT&T has officially announced what pricing will be for the Samsung Galaxy Note 3 phablet as well as the new Samsung Galaxy Gear smartwatch, both of which will be available for purchase through the carrier starting this Friday, Oct. 4.

The Galaxy Note 3 will cost you $299.99 with a two-year service agreement. If you use AT&T's Next program, it's $35 per month for the duration of the time you have the device, though after 12 months, you will have already shelled out $420.

Then if you want the Galaxy Gear as a companion to your Galaxy Note 3, that'll set you back another $299.99. Yes, the smartwatch and phablet combined will cost a pricey $600.

The smartwatch, by the way, is currently only compatible with the Note 3 and in fact relies on it in order to perform most tasks. If you have any other Samsung phone or if you were looking for a watch that can hold its own most if not all of the time, the Galaxy Gear probably isn't in your best interest. Samsung promises compatibility will eventually expand to more devices. Until then, most people will want to either explore other options or just steer away from smartwatches entirely.

Source: CNET | Image via Samsung

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

'Might & Magic: Clash of Heroes,' 'Halo 3' to be October's free Xbox Live Gold games

Next Story

Xi3's PISTON mini-gaming PC to launch Nov. 29

33 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So $299 for a watch that makes call, tells time with different faces, notification, texts, and apps and $299 is too expensive but people will shell out over 500 to thousands of dollars for a watch that just tells time. I would say it's a pretty good deal.

Same as VZW which I expected it to be. The watch is a no sell until it drops below $100. A watch shouldn't cost the same as a phone unless it can do ALL the same things. Even the Pebble watch is to expensive. I wonder how much APple's is going to be?

Anyway dumb idea as why would anyone who hasn't worn a watch in years or only wears them as jewelry, would want this?

I wouldn't mind having on to go with the phone. It's just not worth $300. The price is going ot be the bar to entry and I see a fire sale in a couple months.

I can't wait for these to catch on and watch and laugh when people are running around looking for a charge cable to charge their watch every 2-3 days

suprNOVA said,
yes and no. the idea is not a flop but the presentation may be. I bet we see Galaxy NutsandBolts next yr.

I think anything that's limited in what it can do and requires something else specifically to work with it in the first place is going nowhere. If these worked with any Android device then sure, maybe then I could see them doing well but it's so limited and locked down in a way. Plus the price, and extra $300, I'm sure a few will buy it but not enough to justify it on the market IMO.

neufuse said,
$299 for a watch? yeah, I still don't see the point to these...
$299 is cheap for a watch. I love watches and collect fine pieces. My everyday watch was $1500. I have one special watch that's only worn to special occasions and you would be shocked at the price. Of course prices on luxuries really depend on your income. ;-)

Edited by JHBrown, Sep 30 2013, 8:42pm :

JHBrown said,
$299 is cheap for a watch. I love watches and collect fine pieces. My everyday watch was $2000. I have one special watch that's only worn to special occasions and you would be shocked at the price. Of course prices on luxuries really depend on your income.

Does your 2000 dollar watch have a rubber band?

Does it rely on a phone to work?


Is it made by Samsung?
Ok then.

adrynalyne said,

Does your 2000 dollar watch have a rubber band?

Does it rely on a phone to work?


Is it made by Samsung?
Ok then.

Again, expensive for one person may not be expensive to another. Normally, the younger population will spend outside of their means. However, many professional households with strong incomes, $299 is a drop in the bucket. Who are we to argue if it's the smart decision. It's their money.

You don't have to be middle or lower class to see a stupid buy.

There are infinitely better devices out there not tied to a phone that look better, perform better, are more useful, etc.

You are right though, it is their decision, and a fool and their money are soon parted.

The price tag doesn't scare me off. The lack of usefulness except with one device does. Apple can get away with such silliness, Samsung cannot I don't think.

adrynalyne said,
You don't have to be middle or lower class to see a stupid buy.

There are infinitely better devices out there not tied to a phone that look better, perform better, are more useful, etc.

You are right though, it is their decision, and a fool and their money are soon parted.

Exactly. However, just because something looks like a stupid purchase to you or I doesn't necessarily make it stupid. My opportunity cost are a lot different than your opportunity cost. We have different needs and wants. I will never call someone a fool for purchasing something. I don't know their circumstances.

JHBrown said,
$299 is cheap for a watch. I love watches and collect fine pieces. My everyday watch was $1500. I have one special watch that's only worn to special occasions and you would be shocked at the price. Of course prices on luxuries really depend on your income. ;-)
You think $299 is cheap for a watch? The last fancy watch I ever own was a Casio Databank in stainless steele finish. Cost me $150. That is the most I have ever paid. I received a SWATCH as a XMAS gift and its retail value was $200.

Here is the issue. A real watch serves a dual purpose, it tells time/date/weather dpending on model and it is a piece of jewelry and nice to look at. The above wont even do more than tell time unless you have a compatible phone which costs 299.99 to start. Question, why pay 299 for a watch that does less than a phone? Sure anyone can find a watch that costs much more. But that watch will look better, be made of finer/fancier materials and be useful. This thing is useless without the phone. So it isn't worth 299. I would pay less than $100 which is likely what it will cost by xmas, or on eBay.

neufuse said,
$299 for a watch? yeah, I still don't see the point to these...

Wrong. $598 (minimum) for a watch. You have to buy the Note 3 for the watch to work.

JHBrown said,
Again, expensive for one person may not be expensive to another. Normally, the younger population will spend outside of their means. However, many professional households with strong incomes, $299 is a drop in the bucket. Who are we to argue if it's the smart decision. It's their money.
Even though what you said is true and I agree, it doesn't make it any less dumb because I am not spending my money. That's really the point, it is dumb; which is why I am not spending my money on it.

Having the jack to buy something, doesn't make it a smart buy just because you can afford it. Jewelry serves more than one purpose. Jewelry tends to be expensive because there is nothing to gain after the initial sale. With this watch Samsung stands to gain another buy as you must right now have a GN3 and it wont be compatible with GS3/GS4/GN2 until they all get the 4.3 update which is in God knows when, when waiting for carriers.

You probably cant even set the time without the phone. I don't even consider it an accessory for the phone, it is just an extension and it is more limited. For $299 it is not worth the material it has. It does have nice features, but Samsung could sell it for less to at least drive up sales. Which they will have to do anyways unless they expect low sales. I don't even see 1000 of these selling by XMAS.

Voice of Buddy Christ said,

Wrong. $598 (minimum) for a watch. You have to buy the Note 3 for the watch to work.
Only right now...other Galaxy devices will be support later in Oct...or whenever your carriers lets the update go. So those with International phones are gonna be happy sooner. I don't see more than 1000 be sold.

its for people who are too lazy to pull out there phone right away. They'd rather see the notification on the watch and feel pride that somebody messaged them only later to find out it was telemarketing. /s.

Voice of Buddy Christ said,

Wrong. $598 (minimum) for a watch. You have to buy the Note 3 for the watch to work.

Oh be quiet, you know exactly what I mean, the watch itself cost $299

JHBrown said,
$299 is cheap for a watch. I love watches and collect fine pieces. My everyday watch was $1500. I have one special watch that's only worn to special occasions and you would be shocked at the price. Of course prices on luxuries really depend on your income. ;-)

lol, $1500? What is it, a cheap Timex? My watch is much more impressive!

http://www.amazon.com/Patek-Ph...p;qid=1380585317&sr=1-1

JHBrown said,
Damn Enron. Sorry, I'm not at that level yet. :-)

They have some in the $90,000 range too. Don't let the 3 star reviews fool you though... people are just hating because they wish they had Warren's wealth.