No One Is Buying Smartwatches Anymore (gizmodo.com) 330
An anonymous reader shares a Gizmodo report: Remember how smartwatches were supposed to be the next big thing? About that... The market intelligence firm IDC reported on Monday that smartwatch shipments are down 51.6 percent year-over-year for the third quarter of 2016. This is bad news for all smartwatch vendors (except maybe Garmin), but it's especially bad for Apple, which saw shipments drop 71.6 percent, according to the IDC report Apple is still the overall smartwatch market leader, with an estimated 41.3-percent of the market, but IDC estimates it shipped only 1.1 million Apple Watches in Q3 2016, compared with 3.9 million in 2015. To a degree, that's to be expected, since the new Apple Watch Series 2 came out at the tail-end of the quarter. But the news is still a blow, when you consider how huge the Apple Watch hype was just 18 months ago.
Because their pointless. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are very few use-cases of these which make sense.
Workout accessory? Hardly adds much.
Wireless extension of phone display? Hardly much better than just looking at the damn phone..
Oh - and especially - as a time piece? Size sucks, Durability sucks. Battery life sucks even more making them pointless for most cases where you want a watch (long trips, hiking, camping, etc.).
Failed experiment by electronics makers selling jewellery. They fell into the classic trap of trying to create a market for something which doesn't actually do anything that anyone cares about.
Re: (Score:2)
Their pointless what?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I do find mine useful. I like having music controls on the watch for when I'm out walking and the phone is buried in an inside pocket, and I like getting notifications at a glance in the same sort of situation. Aside from telling the time, that's about all I use it for, but it's enough to be worth having.
Re: (Score:2)
IT Department! We need more energy now!
Captain, we're doing Red Bull via direct infusion and I don't know how long the department will hold together!
Dammit Mr. Anonymous Coward, I don't care what happens to the keyboards, or even the servers, MORE POWER!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Use case two: you are on a motorcycle, and want to use Google Maps.
Yes, this is an edge case that isn't anywhere close to justifying the asking price of one of these devices.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get a small phone mount for your bike. I used them in the past and they work great - there're even waterproof models out there.
Was Obvious from the Start (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone that knows anything about watches could have saw this coming. There is a potential here if they can get a watch that does what a watch does now with additional functionality but they've got to get something else right and that's battery life. Watches are JEWELRY first and time pieces second. Most people who don't care for the time keeping abilities don't even wear one anymore because cell phones have clocks now. Apple tried really hard to get the Jewelry side right but IMO failed miserably. This is a fit and finish game with high end precious metals comprising the composition, often with gemstones.
None of the smartwatches satisfy the Jewelry aspect of time pieces. Taking that into consideration and the fact they have atrocious battery life, offer almost no convenience that their phone doesn't already provide and you've got a product that will sell a few as a status thing and rapidly implode as the main market avoids it. There is a future for these things but it's going to be a niche market until they solve the serious limitations in both functionality and battery life.
Re:Was Obvious from the Start (Score:5, Insightful)
the other issue with watch as jewlery for all smart watches, in my mind, is the software. 10 years from now my Ulysse Nardin will still have value and 20 years it may even appreciate. 30 years from i will give it to my son. 2years from now the iwatch will be out of date and no longer supported.
Re:Was Obvious from the Start (Score:4, Insightful)
the Apple Watch 2.0 only really offers waterproofing. no real advances that people would dump another $350+ to replace their 1 year old Apple Watch 1.0
I think this really needs to be taken into account in the whole discussion. The big story is that Apple Watch sales are down from last year?
You have to figure that a large percentage of people who wanted Apple Watches bought them last year, when they were first released. Most people don't usually replace their electronics after only a year. Even with cell phones, they wait 2 or 3 years, and that's about as frequent as it gets. Given that smart watches are mostly being used as watches and to display notifications from your cell phone, it seems possible that the smartwatch upgrade cycle will be less frequent.
Also, the "Series 2" model is ultimately a minor upgrade. It has GPS in the watch, which may be important to some people. It's waterproof and the old one isn't officially waterproof, but was still more water resistant than advertised. It's not thinner or lighter, the battery doesn't last longer, and it doesn't even look different. Some people will want to upgrade after only one year, but I wouldn't expect most Series 1 owners to think it's worth buying a Series 2.
Given that, I would assume that there'd be a big spike of sales when the Apple Watch was first released, followed by a few years of diminishing sales. I even had a theory (which so far has worked out) that Apple would avoid making a lot of small incremental changes every year. Given the novelty of the product, some people probably held off buying it the first year because they wanted to see if the following year's model would show substantial improvements. Now that we've seen only minor improvements for Series 2, that may have lead some of those people to go ahead and buy one, which may explain why their sales aren't even worse.
My basic theory is that Apple has a cycle in mind for how often they'll release major updates with major design changes, and it's basically on the same time frame that their marketing experts tell them that people will be willing to buy a new smart watch. I don't know if that's 2 years or 4 years, but it's not going to be 1 year.
Re:Was Obvious from the Start (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. When the Apple watch came out, I took my Rolex purchased in the 70s to a jeweler for cleaning and refurbishment which cost 2x what an Apple watch would have cost. I gave it to my son as a graduation gift. The current value on that watch was 5x what I paid for it. Might be a wash with changes to the value of a dollar, but that item will still have value in 2-3 years when the Apple watch would have been dropped into a bin as junk. The HP-01 watch from the 70's was a better product than the Apple watch, by the way I also had an HP-01 back then. Kind of sorry I didn't keep it. I wonder if an Apple watch buyer will every feel the same way after 40 years?
Also, when Apple decide they don't care about the Apple watch any more and shut down the servers that enable it to work, it could well stop functioning altogether; many pieces of modern tech are like this. If their servers are offline they just don't work any more. This isn't going to happen with your Rolex.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not certain about two or five years from now, but I like having my Pebble Steel right now. It was only $99 and it's pretty nice. So far I have worn it about three months nearly 24/7 and the gorilla glass isn't scratched or marred at all. It needs to be charged about once a week and reminds me of that on the day when it wants to be charged 'this night.'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Chiming in to agree; BUT quality isn't the only factor here. You simply couldn't engineer a smartwatch that anyone would want to wear 40 years from now. Even if it worked good as new, it would still be a ridiculously obsolete piece of gear that needs to pair with a "phone" equally out of date and totally incompatible with the networks, and completely unable to render a 'webpage', and all of its client/server apps would be broken.
Maybe steampunk types or some future equivalent "LED-punk" would wear one, with
Re: (Score:3)
While technologically pointless, your zillion-jewel-fiddly-mechanical-movement is going to be just as nifty for
Re: (Score:3)
As another poster already pointed out that "zillion-jewel-fiddly-mechanical-movement" watch isn't just cool, it's likely appreciated in value. Those luxury watches are all very valuable decades down the line even though they are used.
You aren't going to get that with an Apple or Android watch, it's going to be abandoned by the manufacturer in less than 5 years and the battery probably won't last 2 and most of them have batteries that are near impossible to replace, to the point where it's cheaper to buy a n
Re: (Score:2)
It's not jewelry, it's not a collectible.
What is it then? An extra, tiny screen for your phone? That's the most positive way I can put it, and it seems next to useless when explained that way. I haven't yet heard one feature of these devices that I'd ever use. Much less a "killer app" to justify the cost.
The only justification I can come up with for owning one of these is as a fashion accessory. The statistics in this article are telling me that yes, quite a few people did buy it for that purpose. But now, the iWatch is so 2015. Ah, the fickle fl
Re: (Score:2)
My killer app was the sleep cycle alarm clock. Before a smartwatch I have never owned a watch.
Re: (Score:2)
This was obvious a year ago if you were paying attention in the healthcare startup space. It doesn't mean there's no market, but they haven't made it to the general market some were hoping for. On the upside, more specialized uses should continue to drive some work in the space (and perhaps yield successful B2B exits) in the future. But they will (for the most part) be focused more on utility than fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who knows anything about watches could have seen this coming. Everybody used to wear a watch. Then everybody started carrying a smartphone and now watches are rare items worn as decoration by a few people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you're in a similar market as me but I also like the Jewelry aspect as well. My primary watch is a Citizen EcoDrive that never needs a battery change and has a perpetual calendar. My last one was still going strong after 10 years when I replaced it due to scratches. I've also got a watch that doesn't scream cheap that satisfies the jewelry aspect (though cheaply).
Although I said it poorly watch wearers fall into two categories, those that just want the time and those that want the Jewelry. Smart watche
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, have you ever seen someone wearing a watch that didn't work as a timepiece?
Yep. Any smart watch user late in the day, who doesn't keep a charger with them 24/7. Because every one of them has shit battery life.
Rampant consumerism and e-waste (Score:2)
Who needs them anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
There's clock on my phone, computer, car, radio, egg timer.. I don't see the point in carrying extra one on my wrist.
Smartwatches seem even more pointless to me, redundant and limited functionality and horrible battery life.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped wearing a wristwatch 10+ years ago. It was annoying to wear while using a laptop.
There's clock on my phone, computer, car, radio, egg timer.. I don't see the point in carrying extra one on my wrist.
Smartwatches seem even more pointless to me, redundant and limited functionality and horrible battery life.
This is what kills the wristwatch for me.
Even when I had a wristwatch, half the time I kept it in my pocket because having something strapped to my wrist is just too bloody annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
It's... really a misnomer to even call it a smartwatch as that's not its intended use-case. It's really a wrist-mounted mini-phone/tablet that has a limited use-case.
1) The Chinese love them -- because you can tap and draw on their surface while talking to people of different dialects to communicate better
2) Bartenders and other busy people who don't have hands free to pull out their phones every time they ring (assuming they can hear or feel them vibrate).
3) Joggers and other athletes on the go. You
Re: (Score:2)
When the Apple Watch came out I bought an 80s-style digital watch as a sort of protest to what I saw as hipster culture, but now I really like my $14 Timex watch, makes me feel more organized when I'm out and about. That was the first time I wore a wristwatch again after 10+ years.
Re: (Score:2)
Shocking. (Score:2)
I never would have expected that outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
If you could put a lot of really ridiculous health sensors or something else l
Told ya (Score:3)
Remember how smartwatches were supposed to be the next big thing?
Nope.
But do you remember how we told you they were just an early adapter fad, and would remain so until a killer app came along, or at least some more useful functionality than as shipped?
About that...
Yeah...
The market intelligence firm IDC reported on Monday that smartwatch shipments are down 51.6 percent year-over-year for the third quarter of 2016. This is bad news for all smartwatch vendors
Well as we all mentioned back then, perhaps the vendors should now be working on coming up with new features and functionality so the watches would be even more useful, and perhaps spend a bit more effort searching out for those killer apps that still don't seem to exist.
Then they can make those available to the current early adapters that already bought the things, so when asked "How do you like the watch?" they could rant and rave about the awesome things they are doing with it, instead of just replying "meh"
That just might spur more people to buy the things.
Re: (Score:2)
There are killer apps. and look at the pebble forums ayou can find all kinds of really cool ideas that people are freely publishing.
Google and Apple prefer to hinder development and force people to pay $99 a year and go through a "you suck and your apps sucks" approval process for the watch ecosystem
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair I wasn't (or didn't intend to imply) the problem lies with developers, but specifically with the problems brought upon by the vendors themselves.
I would certainly agree the entry fee and sometimes inconsistent approval rules are a problem though, and at least in Apple and Googles cases, brought upon fully by themselves.
Be it cost to publish apps, or the input data an app can have available to it, the devs can only work within the limits of the hardware and the stupidity of the app stores provided
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually thought Apple would have had the better success with a smart watch than most other vendors, as in if any technology company could get the jewelry status symbol angle right, it would be them.
And I suppose looked at relatively that could be argued is the case, as their watch sales are a bit higher than the others lacking that angle.
But the problems with the current crop of smart watches run much deeper than just Apple, and spans pretty much every vendor making general purpose smart watches.
The only
Dumb idea (Score:2)
Bad enough to be a glasshole. (Score:2)
And aside from doing the Dick Tracy wrist tv/radio bit (and really - who wouldn't want to do the Dick Tracy wrist tv/radio bit?) - I just don't see this thing doing much. With the right sensor stack, I suppose continuous biomonitoring is possible, but with only a few exceptions I still keep coming back to 'why?'.
The entire paradigm is backwards (Score:2)
I want a watch which is my phone and data connection. I want to see basic comm functionality I can use - bluetooth for audio if need be - all the time. I want a mini- or regular sized tablet I can carry with my when I think I'll need to interact with the data - but I want to be instant. When I pull up my tablet (whether it be a 5" Android or Apple handset, or a Surface Pro or iPad Pro), I want the low power BT to kickstart the connection and then ramp up to max LTE speeds (or at least hit the 25Mbps BT 4
Re: (Score:2)
I want a watch which is my phone and data connection. I want to see basic comm functionality I can use - bluetooth for audio if need be - all the time.
Basically, you have a Dick Tracy fantasy.
Article is 95% herp Derp (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is UPGRADING their smartwatches because why the hell should I pay $350 to get a watch that has zero features above what I already have? When I had a Pebble Time it did everything I wanted then and the other pebble offerings were useless iterations that either offered a useless feature (lighter and shorter battery).
the Apple Watch 2.0 only really offers waterproofing. no real advances that people would dump another $350+ to replace their 1 year old Apple Watch 1.0
The android watches, well nobody has been buying them, they have always been the last place runners, but their new iterations are all useless. Zero advantages on the new versions.
The ONLY smartwatch maker not with their head up their ass is Pebble. 10 day battery life in the Pebble Time Steel. Apple could have doubled the battery life, Samsung could have doubled battery life.... nope, they are all stuck in the "ZOMG THINNER!" stupidity.
Re:Article is 95% herp Derp (Score:4, Informative)
> Nobody is UPGRADING their smartwatches
You're acting as though this is an item that everyone has. It isn't. It's an item where most people took one look at it and said, "meh". Meanwhile in that same time period, I bought a conventional automatic watch because you never have to wind it and you never have to change the battery. It always works, it's (old) alternative energy and for me that makes it cool. One of the thing we often forget in technology is that sometimes our ancestors already solved the energy problems we're facing today, simply because they didn't have any.
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoying my LG Urbane (Score:2)
I have had an LG Urbane since it first came out about 18 months ago. It is not as geeky looking as most smart watches. It passes for a regular round dial watch since I use a simple watch face that just shows calendar alerts. It was more expensive than the thin and light Seiko it replaced. It is also more useful. I have enjoyed the LG immensely and use it for calendar tracking, Google Fit, flight alerts, maps, etc. I am extremely pleased with it. But I can't see a smart being something I replace frequently
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW I am also happy with my two year old Nexus 6
6 or 6P?
I just bought a Nexus 6 second hand to replace my second hand Nexus 5 which I broke the digitiser of and had a dead battery. I have now successfully replaced the digitiser by replacing the whole screen module because I broke the screen trying to remove the digitiser from it (it's glued). And of course it has a new battery now.
As a new-to-me phone the old Nexus 6 seems pretty good to be honest.
How much more crap do I need? (Score:2)
Dick Tracy is rolling over in his grave (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
there isn't one to use.
Re: (Score:2)
there isn't one to use.
I've seen several straight outta china that are smaller than what Dick wore on his wrist.
Limited styles, Limited functions (Score:2)
Oh thank goodness (Score:2)
I thought I was the only one that thought these things were the biggest pile of fluff. I'm taking bets on the next over-hyped technologies to fall over:
- Personal Drones
- VR
- Tiny Video Cameras (GoPro-like's)
I'm sure there's more, but these ones both seem to be well over-baked in tech press. That said, there isn't too much on the near horizon that seems fractionally interesting to the disruption smart phones have caused in the tech world.
Re: (Score:3)
You know how people love selfies? Yeah. VR is going to be a fad until it's completely physically immersive and you can really feel the NPC blow you, but personal drones and tiny video cameras are here to stay — often in one package.
So much hate (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't want one either. So much so that when my wife surprised me with an Apple watch for Christmas last year, I could hardly hide my disappointment. Thinking "I really didn't *want* one of these"...
But having used a smart watch for a while now, I absolutely love it. Why?
1. The haptic feedback. I run my phone on silent 24/7, which meant that I was constantly having to double-check that I didn't miss a message while walking around. There's no missing or mistaking the prominent tap from the watch so this problem is solved. No more missed messages and no more randomly checking my phone.
2. The weather. I wouldn't have predicted this one, but having the current weather conditions plus the day's high/low temps on the watch face is super useful. I probably look at my watch for the weather conditions almost as often as I look at it for the time.
3. The general freedom of not needing my phone in my hand. In lots of small ways throughout the day, a well-functioning smart watch is another one of those "living in the future" joys. Sending messages by voice without even pulling out your phone, pausing/resuming podcasts while mowing the lawn, getting haptic navigation directions while having an uninterrupted conversation... a good smart watch is clearly a step forward.
As a former skeptic turned believer, it's a shame to see so many people dumping on these devices without having the chance to really see what they offer.
Re: (Score:2)
2. The weather. I wouldn't have predicted this one, but having the current weather conditions plus the day's high/low temps on the watch face is super useful. I probably look at my watch for the weather conditions almost as often as I look at it for the time.
How often does your weather chance? I check the weather in the morning to see if I need to wear a jacket or bring an umbrella and that's the last time I check it all day - I don't really need to know if it's 63 degrees or 67 degrees, the forecast said "mid 60's" and that's all I need.
About the only time I check the weather on demand is to look at weather radar to see if I can go on a bike ride without getting caught in the rain, but a watch face seems a little small to see a moving radar map with enough de
Re: (Score:2)
Services like Dark Sky [darksky.net] can provide predictions that are accurate to the minute. If you're worried about rain or snow, getting a tap on your wrist alerting you to a change is that much nicer and more convenient than having to check your phone.
That doesn't mean that weather apps will be the killer app for everyone. It's really a matter of finding out what simple, small conveniences you need more of in your life. And that (in part) makes it a lot harder to sell smartwatches: once you have them they can be g
Re:So much hate/So much love (Score:2)
You got something that turned out that you enjoy and has a killer app for you.
A week or so ago, there was an article about GPS in cars being something that most people don't like - personally I love it and I would never own a car without it.
Everybody loves something different and there is enough different things out there for everybody to find something that they can't live without. Without being ironic or facetious, it really is a great time to be alive.
I think what the article is pointing out (and was no
Re: (Score:2)
As a former skeptic turned believer, it's a shame to see so many people dumping on these devices without having the chance to really see what they offer.
Kinda like the Zune, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a must have item by any stretch, but like keyless entry on your car, if you make enough money to spoil yourself occasionally, it has its place. My 2 things: 1) Text messages...reply by voice is excellent and accurate for me; 2) Calendar...it's on my home screen and shows my next appointment...love it. Beyond that, I
Re: (Score:2)
Same experience here. When I heard about the Apple Watch, especially the price, I thought "who would pay so much for it?! Maybe I'll consider when it is half the price." And I thought I would never want one... right until I played with one in an Apple Store, then I bought one immediately.
Exactly the same general points as yours -
1. Haptic feedback. You never needed it, until you used it, then you don't ever want to go without it. I have my phone on vibrate most of the time, so I most easily miss calls
Bundling (Problem Finding Solution Special) (Score:2)
Perhaps they can bundle smartphones with 3D TVs
Re: (Score:2)
edit: Perhaps they can bundle smartwatches with 3D TVs
Classified areas (Score:2)
Bad data, poor credibility (Score:4, Informative)
Folks, all of this is from numbers pulled out of some IDC analyst's rear end. Their estimates are no better than SWAG's. I should know, I've had to use their reports in a past life. Sometimes they're accurate, as companies will report otherwise confidential numbers so long as they can't be backed out of the reports. However, Apple doesn't play those games and in this case it's explicitly some analyst's best guess. Most analysts badly misunderstand Apple, and when you misunderstand the biggest player in the market your analysis is almost certain to be wrong.
Also, Garmin's growth was from a very low base. It's easy to grow by 300+% if you start from almost zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - and the reason is, people are wankers. Half a dozen people report that their iPhone Plus bends - international scandal. Galaxy cracks at the same pressure - no one cares. Samsung phones are blowing up and even setting people's houses on fire? Two-day news story.
I like Garmin (Score:2)
Coincidentally, I've purchased a Garmin watch in the past year. I wanted a GPS + Heart rate monitor sports tracker for running and cycling, and didn't want one that requires that it be used with my phone. If I have to carry my phone along, then I'd just use it for sports tracking instead of the watch.... I don't see why I'd want to have a "smart watch" that's only smart when it's tethered to my phone. If I get a phone or text message when I'm too busy to take my phone out of my pocket to see who it is, I'm
Technology isn't advanced enough yet (Score:5, Interesting)
We still don't have the display technology to make a proper smartwatch. Until we have a watch with a display that is continuously on and active (such as a full-color e-ink display that's at least 30 FPS) that can operate for a minimum of 24 hours continuously on one charge, smart watches are going to be a severe compromise from existing watches (digital or analog). Only those that have use cases that really require them, or that want to bend over backwards to integrate them into their lives, will find them useful enough to bother with.
Look at digital watches. The first generation were LED with red glowing numbers, and they only displayed the time when you pushed a button, otherwise the battery would be dead within an hour. Does that sound familiar? Digital watches did not explode onto the scene until LCD displays matured, which were capable of actively displaying real-time data continuously for months on a single battery. That will be the technology that drives smartwatches - whatever display advancements need to take place to allow continuous full-color, real-time data display with a battery life measured in days. Until then, companies like Apple are putting the cart before the horse and using gimmicks like gestures and the like to try and switch the display on intermittently (and hopefully) when the user is needing to see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Cant give them away (Score:4, Insightful)
I knew the Apple Watch was not going to work out when Apple offered a 50% discount to their employees and my friend who works at Apple offered me to use his discount to get one. If Apple employees are not willing to buy it at 50% why would the public buy it at full price?
Knowing the niche (Score:2)
I blame Brexit! (Score:2, Funny)
I'm not sure why but sooner or later someone will come up with a reason ;)
Market size is a limiting factor (Score:2)
While smart watches do have their uses, it is still a niche market. Many smart phone users do not want or need a smart watch. Most of the people I know stopped wearing a watch when they started carrying a smart phone because it is pretty easy to check the time on their phone. Fitness trackers existed before smart watches and are a simple alternative at a lower cost, for a segment of the market that might consider purchasing a smart watch. There are plenty of people that still like to wear the more tradi
No shit, Sherlock (Score:2)
Once 99.999% of people realized that smartwatches were useless over-hyped bullshit, the word got out and even the gadget-whores stopped buying them.
Smartwatches were a 'solution' in search of a problem that didn't exist. Virtually all of them are gathering dust in drawers, forgotten and forsaken.
People aren't buying Apple smartwatches (Score:3)
I think Apple just has itself priced out of that particular market,
Re: (Score:2)
There's a shocker... (Score:2)
Too bad (Score:2)
That's too bad. This will probably slow research in this area. I was looking forward to someday having a watch with as much power/space/battery-life as a high end smartphone that could be paired with a keyboard and screen when needed.
Smartwatches have one giant, fatal flaw... (Score:2)
...and that is you have to wear a watch.
Bellwether of EBay (Score:2)
I was tempted to try a smart watch just to satisfy my techie curiosity, I'm still tempted to get one.
I don't need one, I'd just like to have one to play with and perhaps even dabble in writing an applet or two.
Saw this post and thought I'd go check the 2nd hand market for an Apple Sport 42mm.
Surprisingly I find that there's very little to be saved in purchasing a year old smart watch.
I'd have expected them to be going for 1/2 to 75% of their original price. Not so it seems.
So either I'm looking too soon or
Got One, Love It (Score:2)
i grew up in a time before cell phones — im used to a watch, and after 10+ years of living without one (because of having the time on a phone) — it is rather pleasant having one again. i wouldnt say it replaces the phone, but is a good supplement — i find i dont have to pull out my phone as often, and love the way i can just glance over to see what's coming in without having to haul out a brick.
most of all — its just got to be a good watch — and it still doesnt beat my movado
I'd want one... (Score:3)
... but their battery lives suck, require mobile phones, etc. I will stick with the old school Casio Data Bank watches.
My memory must be failing me (Score:2)
Remember how smartwatches were supposed to be the next big thing?
Mostly what I remember is myself and almost everyone on Slashdot mocking them, on account of being inferior to a phone on most "smart" attributes such as size, battery life, price, and processing power, and inferior to a watch on most "watch" attributes, particularly size, battery life, and price. Certainly they would have a few use cases that would make them worth wearing, but for the majority it would be at best a cool but impractical gadget.
SLOW DOWN and / or make it a loss-leader. (Score:2)
Apple did themselves a disservice by releasing the updated watches after only 1 year. They signaled to the market that the watch you buy will be best supported for only a short period of time. You're paying hefty prices for an adjunct to your phone. App developers will follow the performance and capabilities, and the supplanted devices will soon become hobbled in what apps they can run and how well they can run them.
If they slow down their product life-cycle, I'd pay their ask. For buyers like myself, they
The problem is that the idea never got any chance (Score:2)
It started right away with "big budget" devices. Devices that were hard to program and had to sell huge numbers to recover their investments. Those devices were then aimed at the "fitness tracker" market and nothing else. Not even displaying the time was a priority any more. Also screens have been to small compared to their sci-fi counterparts and nobody bothered about the input problem. In fact in order to use (=program) all of those computers you had to use a separate computer with a special development e
Doomed from the start (Score:3)
The main problem that killed (is killing?) smartwatches is not only the limited use scenarios for them - is that battery times sucks. 24-48hs is already miserable for a phone, let alone a device you are supposed to attach to your wrist. My watch is a Citizen EcoDrive: rugged, accurate and never ever needs recharging.
I have several acquaintances who stopped using their iWatches or 360s just because it is annoying to put it to charge every night next to their phones. Been thinking about buying a 360 from one of them because there're some interesting apps for pilots out there but, in the end, its more a novelty than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
they already have a phone...or a watch. Do we really need a bluetooth phone extension to our wrist or a watch that can freeze up?
Not just that, they mostly have jewelry that's real gold - or silver, and haven't exactly picked up the idea of jewelry in different colors
Re:People probably realized.. (Score:5, Funny)
they already have a phone...or a watch.
And smart wristwatches have no hipster cred value. Smart pocketwatches... now you're talking.
Re: (Score:2)
I think of my cell phone as my pocket watch.
I'm so glad I don't wear a bulky chunk of metal on my wrist any more. Plus there are clocks on computer screens and car dashboards and land line phones.
There are some activities where a wrist watch makes sense; but I don't do those things
Re: (Score:3)
Re:People probably realized.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Watches are worn as bling (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people have figured out that they carry their phone all the time so the watch is useless.
Some people think that a big platinum or gold looking one or diamond encrusted one still makes them look successful or alpha, whereas it really just makes them look quaint, narcissistic, and backward.
If you're really important, you have a person to tell you the time without you even having to ask.
Re:Watches are worn as bling (Score:5, Insightful)
Watches aren't just for bling, they're there to tell the time. A watch that needs to charge constantly, or needs to be pushed / shaken to show the time, or is hard to read in sunlight is a pain in the ass. That's why "smart" watches fail. They compromise the most basic function that they are supposed to perform. Instead we get shit like wrist cameras, half assed phone sync functionality, heart rate monitors etc. If someone produces a smart watch that tells the time with an always-on display, that works in and out of doors, that lasts weeks or months between charges then we might be getting somewhere. The other stuff is merely a bonus at that point.
Re:Watches are worn as bling (Score:4, Informative)
Watch collector/restorer here.
I don't like the huge, fat watch thing either. Nor am I a fan of subdials and other complications for daily wear. And here's the thing: for the most part ostentatiously big, fat, complicated watches are a low-end phenomenon. As you go higher hundreds and then into thousands of dollars, visual complexity shrinks until you are looking at something like a Rolex Milgauss [wikipedia.org] for about $5000. The Migauss is somewhat fatter than I'd prefer because it's very robust -- it's designed for every day use. For dress use, if cost were no object, I'd wear something like a Vacheron Constantin Patrimony [vacheron-constantin.com], which is 2.6 mm thick and 20.6 mm across. It's small, but the clean design means it doesn't have to be big. For that reason I wouldn't spend the additional $10,000 for the date complication.
Smartphones haven't eliminated the usefulness of wristwatches; they've just eliminated the usefulness of all the gee-gaws on watches for purposes other than telling time. You don't need the day/date complication, and you don't need the stopwatch or countdown timer, that stuff just makes a watch complicated to operate and hard to read. All you need is the hour, minute and second hand. I also make extensive use of a rotating dive-watch bezel for timing things like runs. When I rebuild watches I sometimes replace the face to cover up the day/date complication because it just clutters the design.
That's the problem with watches: it's hard to find a thoughtfully-designed, stripped down watch for under $500. But you can find them. One of my favorite cheap watches is a Casio [casio-usa.com] that costs only $15 on Amazon -- I think of it as a disposable watch. It is very, very cheap in every respect, but it tells time as well as a $5000 Rolex and has similarly clean design. The only changes I'd make would be to improve the lume and remove the day/date complication.
Anyhow, if you showed up wearing a Patrimony I'd be impressed -- not because you spent $12,000 on a watch, but that you'd spent $12,000 on a watch whose value only a serious connoisseur would recognize. If you want to impress the ignorant, go big. If you want to impress the sophisticated, go simple.
Re: (Score:3)
I like Skagen, and they're a rare example of clean design at an affordable price. I especially like an Ancher model -- the arabic version with leather band for general wear and the baton dial for dress. The Holst with day/date dials combines two things I don't usually like (subdials and day/date complications) but does it in a way that I actually like quite a bit. For me it's not the existence of the complication per se, but the readability of the watch. Unfortunately the Holst is a bit on the thick si
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main issue is that any watch over $200 is expected to last 10-20+ years. A smart watch is designed to last 1-2 years.
Exactly.
I may well buy a smart watch one day. One necessary precondition is that it has to be cheap enough that I won't regret the purchase if it turns out to be useless.
Re: (Score:2)
The main issue is that any watch over $200 is expected to last 10-20+ years. A smart watch is designed to last 1-2 years.
I'm sure that's not correct - people who buy those digital casios for $50 expect them to last for 10+ years. My $30 casio is over ten years old and I haven't even had to change the battery yet (it might be charging off sunlight).
Re:Because you look dumb wearing it (Score:5, Funny)
We here at Slashdot are the nerds you picked on in High School.
Shouldn't you be on 4Chan or somewhere like that?