x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Hidden picShow menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Samsung Gear 2, Gear 2 Neo and Gear Fit prices allegedly revealed

Samsung Gear 2, Gear 2 Neo and Gear Fit prices allegedly revealed

Posted: , by Florin T.

Samsung Gear 2, Gear 2 Neo and Gear Fit prices allegedly revealed

Samsung announced no less than three new wearable devices at MWC 2014 last week: the Gear 2 and Gear 2 Neo smart watches (both running Tizen OS), plus the Gear Fit smart band. The company didn’t reveal the prices of these new products, only saying that they’d be available starting April.

Now, however, Sam Mobile seems to know how much the Gear 2, Gear 2 Neo and Gear Fit will cost. Since Sam Mobile is an European website, it provided the prices in Euro. Here they are: 

  • Samsung Gear 2 - €299
  • Samsung Gear 2 Neo - €199
  • Samsung Gear Fit - €199
We’re assuming that prices for the US market will be similar: $299 for the Gear 2, and $199 for the Gear 2 Neo and Gear Fit.

One of the main complaints regarding Samsung’s first smart watch, the Android-based Galaxy Gear, was its launch price: $299. While it looks like the Gear 2 won’t be cheaper, at least the Gear 2 Neo is going to be more affordable. Of course, there are still many users who don’t see the point in buying a smart watch. But those who do will soon have new options to choose from, and one of them may cost less than $200.

source: Sam Mobile (Twitter)

49 Comments
  • Options
    Close






posted on 04 Mar 2014, 14:20 1

1. UglyFrank (Posts: 1724; Member since: 23 Jan 2014)


This will probably work out to £199, but would it be better to get a Neo or Fit. The fit can't answer calls but it looks nicer

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 14:22 3

2. Synack (Posts: 677; Member since: 05 Jul 2011)


Hoping the fit will be more towards $150.

posted on 05 Mar 2014, 02:55 1

35. rd_nest (Posts: 1606; Member since: 06 Jun 2010)


Why? A Jawbone, or Nike+ FuelBand SE costs this much. They don't have anything close to Fit.

Do you people forget that this has a curved AMOLED screen?? They don't come cheap. Anything less than 200 is being severely unrealistic.

Can you name a single product with such features and such a display within 150?

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 14:30 6

3. Scott93274 (Posts: 5021; Member since: 06 Aug 2013)


I really don't want to come off as a troll or Mxyzptlk or anything lame like that, but I have yet to see a smart watch that really interests me.

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 19:31

20. vincelongman (Posts: 4574; Member since: 10 Feb 2013)


Agreed, hopefully the next Peddle or Sony or Google or Apple smartwatch brings some innovation

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 21:07 3

21. KillgoreTroutTime (Posts: 433; Member since: 06 Jan 2014)


What type of innovation are you looking for in an electronic wrist device?(Lets stop trying to call these watches, that's like calling a calculator a smart abacus. These are beyond watches.) Name three features that you want that nothing on the market currently offers, and don't say style since that it too subjective.

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 22:02

24. vincelongman (Posts: 4574; Member since: 10 Feb 2013)


To be honest, I'm not actually sure what I want.
Maybe a sharp bright screen, IPS or AMOLED, that is able to always show the time & date, while having a weeks battery life.
A more initiative way to navigate and reply to txt/email.
For design, similar to the Steel, but bigger screen and minimal bezels.

posted on 05 Mar 2014, 02:46 1

32. KillgoreTroutTime (Posts: 433; Member since: 06 Jan 2014)


You aren't going to get a bright screen that is on 100% of the time and lasts for a week for another decade or so. I would suggest you either move along or bring down your expectations. If you want always on, then E-ink type displays is what you want. Why exactly do you need something capable of video play back on your wrist anyway? The wrist device should be like the mouse to your phones screen. Like a mouse, it should be a tool to easily access and transmit data to and from your phone. The phone is the hub and the "watch" should be the ultimate input/output device that relies heavily on auditory information and less on battery hogging display.

posted on 05 Mar 2014, 02:58

36. rd_nest (Posts: 1606; Member since: 06 Jun 2010)


So, you want a always ON screen and that should run for weeks?? That too screen like AMOLED or IPS and not e-ink??

And you don't want to pay more than 200?

What's next? Want to be heir to Bill Gates' fortune?

posted on 05 Mar 2014, 14:25

41. KillgoreTroutTime (Posts: 433; Member since: 06 Jan 2014)


For real. Most people have ridiculous expectations or simply don't understand the current state of technology.

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 14:32

4. dontneedtoknow (Posts: 158; Member since: 17 Feb 2014)


I was hoping the fit would be around $100 and I was looking forward to it. I guess gotta wait for other competitors.

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 14:34 3

5. Taters (banned) (Posts: 6474; Member since: 28 Jan 2013)


Hmm, if I had a Galaxy phone I would probably get the neo after one or two price drops. Unfortunately I don't and do not plan to.

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 22:29 1

25. moroninc (Posts: 193; Member since: 14 Jul 2012)


don't weigh in if, you got nothing we don't already know, to say!

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 15:17 3

6. ph00ny (Posts: 1263; Member since: 26 May 2011)


I'm probably going to pick up both Fit and Gear2

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 15:24 1

7. Lauticol (Posts: 346; Member since: 25 Jun 2011)


I don't know why the Gear 2 is so overpriced! The only difference with the Neo is the camera (at €100 more, is not worthy!)

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 17:08

13. taz89 (Posts: 2014; Member since: 03 May 2011)


Definite agree, maybe 50 more but 100 extra. I think the gear is also more metal where as the neo is more plastic. Personally was hoping 199 max for gear 2.

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 16:04 3

8. GoBears (Posts: 451; Member since: 27 Apr 2012)


I really love my Gear and will definitely be getting a Gear 2. After my N3 it's become my favorite gadget. Especially since being rooted and running "Null".

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 16:35

9. ndidaaaa (Posts: 7; Member since: 02 Aug 2012)


This is absurd! A CELLPHONE (as the Moto G) costs 200$. There is no reason in the world, a piece of tech like this, should be priced equally to a very very decent and capable phone

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 17:06 3

11. Killua (Posts: 270; Member since: 25 Nov 2013)


Comparing it to Moto G is a bit unfair in my opinion. Since google's ideal when launching Moto G is not to get much profit like typical manufactures.

Samsung and other regular companies on the other hand are asking for profit.

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 21:55

23. KillgoreTroutTime (Posts: 433; Member since: 06 Jan 2014)


It is also cheaper to make a 5 inch phone after years of experience doing that rather than create a whole new TINY gadget that fits on a wrist. People act like a smaller device should cost less simply because it is smaller. Dimensions don't have a lot to do with price when you're talking about electronics.

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 22:31 1

26. moroninc (Posts: 193; Member since: 14 Jul 2012)


yes but we dont want a cell phone. we want something cool on our wrists that has extra functions and can also help us out with notifications we normally miss when our phone is in our pocket. And since Samsung is among the first to the market, they can price whatever they like... think Apple iPhone in 2007

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 23:49

28. willard12 (Posts: 1721; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)


How much does a watch cost that doesn't receive calls, texts, and emails?

posted on 05 Mar 2014, 03:17

37. rd_nest (Posts: 1606; Member since: 06 Jun 2010)


You know nothing about technology if you make statements like that.

miniaturization costs..

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 16:56 1

10. jian9007 (Posts: 22; Member since: 20 Nov 2012)


I think the Fit will slot in below the Neo in price. It doesn't make sense to price it the same as the Neo. Then one would cannibalize the other. I think the Fit will be $50 cheaper than the Neo when it comes out. $299, $249, and $199 maybe, though I'd prefer $249, $199, and $149. But this is Samsung we're talking about. They do have a tendency to be overpriced a bit.

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 17:08

12. Killua (Posts: 270; Member since: 25 Nov 2013)


Okay, I'm waiting to be released here. The price is just as expected, and I believe it'll get down just like the predecessor. Probably going to buy it 4 or 8 weeks after the release.

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 17:10

14. Leonis (Posts: 338; Member since: 08 Jan 2014)


Prices are ridiculous! This cost like 10 USD to make and they ask for 200Euros??? Total scumbag samsung.

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 17:34 4

15. ph00ny (Posts: 1263; Member since: 26 May 2011)


Can't tell if you're sarcastic or just flat out trolling

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 21:09 1

22. KillgoreTroutTime (Posts: 433; Member since: 06 Jan 2014)


I am wondering if you factored in R&D with your $10 per unit guess. Actually, no I am not wondering, I am confident that you did not.

posted on 05 Mar 2014, 02:53

34. Leonis (Posts: 338; Member since: 08 Jan 2014)


I did not. But I believe 100 or maximun 150 would be the price everyone actually consider this. And i think they can make profit of this without the extreme high price. I don't think, actually I know you didn't thought I believed they can make a profit with a lower price.

posted on 04 Mar 2014, 23:17

27. moroninc (Posts: 193; Member since: 14 Jul 2012)


R&D, Prototype, Testing, Marketing, Manufacturing, Logistics .. so yeah unless everything is done in CHINA and you order cheap plastic and cheap everything and your warranty is 3 mths but lasts less than 1 month then ofcourse you can have it for less than 10 bucks... knock yourself out

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories