Wearables Still Slow To Catch On in the United States (axios.com) 127
An anonymous reader shares a report: The use of wearable technology devices -- like watches, glasses and fitness tracking bracelets -- will grow 11.9 percent next year, eMarketer predicts, with the growth rate continuing to slow compared to previous years. Smartwatches will drive the bulk of wearables growth, but the number of people who use wearable technology will still be less than 20 percent of the population. Experts suggest wearable adoption will slow due to cost and unmet user expectations. Still, others, like analyst firm IDC, predict that U.S. wearable use will continue to climb, doubling in size by devices shipped 2021, just at a slower pace.
The main question is why (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The main question is why (Score:5, Interesting)
I would want to wear a computing device - I just don't want to have another thing to charge each night.
I even stopped wearing my dive watch (Citizen Promaster Aqualand (with a metal band replacing the horrible rubber one ) because it needed expensive battery replacements which cost $50 for battery change and predssure test every year.
Now I still have a dive watch, but it's an eco-drive one that has fewer functions (no depth gauge) but has the advantage in that it is solar powered so never needs a battery change.
If you could build even a low powered computing device that had that feature, it'd be a winner - because it would be handy having even a subset of the features a smartphone has, always available at your wrist. That convenience is negated however, if you have to worry about keeping it charged all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you wear a dive watch if you arenâ(TM)t diving?
Why would anyone wear training shoes or a sweatshirt if they're not an athlete?
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't want to have another thing to charge each night.
and that's a bad idea. letting something charge to 100% is bad for the battery-life (especially because it will go 99.9->100-99.9-->100-->99.9-->100%)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not that's true depends entirely on the particular battery chemistry.
Purpose (Score:3)
I even stopped wearing my dive watch (Citizen Promaster Aqualand (with a metal band replacing the horrible rubber one ) because it needed expensive battery replacements which cost $50 for battery change and predssure test every year.
What exactly is the purpose of a dive watch if you are not actively diving? I wouldn't wear one either but I'm puzzled why anyone would start to wear one.
If you could build even a low powered computing device that had that feature, it'd be a winner - because it would be handy having even a subset of the features a smartphone has, always available at your wrist.
I doesn't matter how little power it draws if it doesn't solve any actual problems the wearer has. Right now all wearables are basically compact sensor suites combined with a fancy pager. If you don't have a need for one or both of those things then a wearable is going to be useless to you especially in circumstances where it is practical to carry a sma
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know what the definition of "dive watch", but I always thought it was basically, waterproof deeper than you'll ever go, and has a rotary face for timing things.
Both of those are pretty useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a wear a pair of glasses, that hooks up to my phone, so I don't have to take it out of my pocket and I can turn it's dinky little screen into an effective 125 inch screen. Most of the time it just delivers a bit of information relating to incoming calls and no advertising. The glasses also would protect my eyes, provide the camera lens and be ground for the perfect fit, variable tint to keep excess light out. Why would I not?
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is the purpose of a dive watch if you are not actively diving?
They are properly waterproof, rugged and easy to read the time in poor conditions. The analogue timer is often useful and you can operate it wearing gloves.
And before anyone asks, no fishing your phone out of your pocket to tell the time is not more convenient than looking at your wrist. There is a reason people moved away from pocket watches to wrist watches.
Re: (Score:3)
We have also come a long way with watches. For a C-note, you can get a Bulova self-winder which may not be yet another small computer... but it will do what you need it to.
We have very good low voltage chips, and e-Ink displays (a 1.1" round display costs $99 as a sample). Why can't someone do what Palm originally did, and focus on power savings and UI first, gewgaws later? We really don't need a fast CPU in a watch, especially if the display is monochrome with a relatively slow update time. If needed,
Re: (Score:1)
Amen to the crazy dive watch battery replacement cost. I considered getting a pressure box so I could redo the watch and seals myself. Then found a better solution.
I traded in my Seiko dive watch with the battery for an antique old school self winding watch... hasn't needed anything but the occasional wash down for ten years.
The main question is "what is the killer app"? (Score:4, Insightful)
The main question is why: why in the world would you want to wear your computer?
Wrong question. People basically do that already. Smartphones rarely leave people's side so for all practical purposes they are wearing it. The question is what does the wearable do for your that the smartphone you already carry does not? There are a few niche uses but none that apply to most of the population. For most people the smartphone accomplishes all the same stuff and quite a lot more. There just hasn't been a killer app for wearables yet.
Re: (Score:3)
The main question is why: why in the world would you want to wear your computer?
To feel cool!
Otherwise why would seemingly sensible folk spend north of US$1,000 on an item that will be obsolete in less than a year, is very delicate and is mainly used to communicate [un]important staff (read gossip)?
Some have been seen camping out in the rain/cold etc...
I think it's a form of mental illness.
Re: The main question is why (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't have to reach into your cloth flap every time you get a text message, read your message and stow it back in your cloth flap.
Sort of the same reason watches migrated from being kept in cloth flaps to being worn on wrists once the size of a watch shrunk to the point it fit on a wrist.
Re: The main question is why (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care enough about what the time is to need to look at it on my wrist.
And I don't wear a watch. I've got a phone, it's got a clock, a watch is redundant.
I think the pocketwatch people had it right, there's no point in a wristwatch for most people, and they're uncomfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the pocketwatch people had it right, there's no point in a wristwatch for most people, and they're uncomfortable.
When the wristwatch was new, it was all "ooh, ahh, look how small it is." Now it's old. Smartwatches will take off to whatever extent they actually will ever do that when you don't need a phone to go with them (just a headset/headphones) and a battery charge will last you all day. Until then, they're a toy for nerds and a niche tool for a handful of people who can really benefit from them.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care enough about what the time is to need to look at it on my wrist.
But maybe, just maybe, other people do.
Re: (Score:2)
And for them, there's the smartwatch.
But most of the time if I'm actually interested in knowing what time it is, I've either got it in the upper right corner of my computer screen or just off to my right on the car's center screen.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got to put my suit and swiss watch on so I can jump in my Porsche and get to work.
Seems like a lot of effort to move from one area of your mom's basement to another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If none of this is useful to you, then don't buy one. Simple enough.
Yeah, I'd say the sales figures have spoken to this.
One of the biggest problems with smart watches is that they are terrible as timepieces. My $15 Timex Weekender has had the same battery since I bought it three years ago and doesn't rely on an acceleromoter to try to infer when I want to look at the time.
But, to be honest, the whole reason I bought a watch was so to get the time without all the notifications and connectedness and whatnot. If I put my phone in my bag it stays there.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been considering a smart watch to go along with my Android phone for some time, but the quality and functionality of many seem to be poor (or at least scored lower than I'd like by reviewers). Since it sounds like you've got a lot of experience with this, may I ask what brand and model of smart watch you use currently? Or what you would recommend, if you do not currently own what you consider to be the best option?
Re: (Score:2)
Target demographic (Score:2)
I don't think that anybody wants to wear a computer.
Demonstrably untrue. People carry their smartphones everywhere which is basically wearing them. And a wearable IS a computer so I don't really think your point is self consistent.
It lets you see the time without taking out your phone (and getting distracted).
How is this helpful most of the time? I presently have 3 clocks within eyeshot even without getting my phone out of my pocket. You have to be a little OCD about the time to want to wear a watch most of the time these days. I have clocks on the walls, on my PC desktop, in my car, on my phone, and even on street signs in town. A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take your kid to a playground and look around. There's no clock. Go hiking or camping. There's no clock. Go to a trampoline park. No idea why they make the clocks so hard to see. Go to any restaurant. Beginning athlete's are most in need of heart rate monitors.
Try to find a visible clock in any casino.
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me...
Have casinos banned smart watches yet?
With sensitive accelerometers and haptic feedback it is now possible to use the watch to game many table games.
Case in point, my EE prof as part of his PhD made a wearable computer (in the 80's!) that could improve your odds on any even money bet on the roulette wheel to ~70% (odd/even, Red/black, or High/Low). It was a clunky thing that relied on using a fixed point on the wheel and ball passing a predetermined point on the wheel housing. Tap the s
Re: The main question is why (Score:2)
Because I don't want to pull my phone out of my pocket every time I get a notification, call, or check the time. With all the phone spamming happening I check if the number seems like it might have a chance and hit dismiss if I think it's spam. I can see all of my notifications fine from the watch so I can keep my phone safe in my pocket and continue what I am doing.
I agree that most of the current smart watches are way too expensive. I got the Pebble which was reasonable and now I have an LG Style, which
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still running with my Pebble, and I agree.
The thing about the Pebble was that it wasn't really a "smartwatch", it was just a smarter watch. Sure, it had a built in pedometer, but for me, the killer app was the notifications.
I alternate between noisy and quiet environments. In the noisy one, I rarely heard my phone unless I had the ringer cranked up to 11, and often not even then. And then I'd be a in a quiet meeting room, get a call, and the ringer was deafening.
With the Pebble, I turn my ringer off, al
Re: (Score:2)
I had the same thought. Why do we care? If people want to use a "wearable" then great - more power to you. It's not a problem that a lot of people DON'T want that though. I have a cell phone in my pocket. That's as connected as I need to be.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, people aren't wearing enough hats... Maybe put the stuff in a hat?
Obligitory Monty Python Clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's cool, man. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you want to carry it in your pocket?
Re: (Score:2)
The main question is why: why in the world would you want to wear your computer?
For about everybody I know that has a smart watch, it's so they can see their texts and phone calls while driving or at meetings without having to pull out their phones, because 90% of them can wait till later, and the other 10% can't.
Re: (Score:1)
Bio monitoring.
I bought one of the cheaper ones that does heart rate, blood pressure, etc. It also does steps walked, sleep monitoring, buzzes your wrist on a phone call, and displays sms messages on the unit. $39 plus shipping. Hey, after a respiratory virus set off atrial fibrillation; I got concerned.
The downside, I'm on my third monitor sold as "waterproof to 15 meters" that fails if you sweat on it a lot. No more warrantee replacements because I'm "abusing" my unit.
Wearable tech is a promise that d
Re: (Score:2)
This is basically why adaptation has been slow. It's generally the "look at me!" douches that adapt them early, and nobody but they themselves wants to be associated with this crowd.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe you should examine this closer. Sure, if someone is shoving the device in your face, saying how smart they are for buying it, etc...yeah, those are douchey behaviors.
But merely just wearing it? That just sounds like projection at that point.
Problemless Solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
We seem to respond differently to something tangible, though. Adoption is slow because most of us recognize that the current offerings of 'wearables' don't pose a significant enough improvement in our lives to justify purchasing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Adoption is slow because most of us recognize that the current offerings of 'wearables' don't pose a significant enough improvement in our lives to justify purchasing them.
What would improve a lot of people's lives is to stop being a slave to their devices and engage the people and the world around them. Not every good experience needs to be put on social media.
Re: (Score:2)
But to some degree that's normal. Why would I need a computer in my house? That's a question that thirty years ago most people couldn't answer, except maybe "balance my checkbook".
There is an adoption life cycle , and the people on the tails (leading and trailing) tend to base their participation on emotional factors rather than pragmatic ones.
Why wearables don't sell (Score:5, Insightful)
Smartwatches will drive the bulk of wearables growth, but the number of people who use wearable technology will still be less than 20 percent of the population. Experts suggest wearable adoption will slow due to cost and unmet user expectations.
It's not about the cost. It's about the fact that they don't solve any problems for most of the people that might consider buying them. Until someone cracks the code on devices that actually do something that smartphones cannot they aren't going to see widespread adoption. There also is the fact that most of them cannot be used as fashion accessories outside of certain very geeky circles.
Look, I should be the ideal demographic for a wearable. I exercise, I love gadgets, I have the disposable income to buy such gadgets. But there literally are none out there that solve any real world problems for me. The Apple Watch, Fitbit, and equivalents don't do anything I actually need 99.999% of the time. (plus I don't like wearing a watch) If I don't wear it during exercise (and I typically don't) there literally is zero utility in them for me that my smartphone doesn't already provide. Wearables are basically small sensor suites, sometimes combined with what is basically a fancy pager. Not useless but definitely niche.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about the cost. It's about the fact that they don't solve any problems for most of the people that might consider buying them.
I think cost is definitely a big part of it. I have a Pebble watch, it did everything I wanted a smart watch to do (showed me the time and displayed texts when I got them). I bought it because it was only ($50?). The display's gone flakey on it, so I don't wear it any more, despite the fact that I really liked it. I haven't replaced it because I can't see spending $100+ for an unattractive watch that displays texts. To get an attractive watch, you have to spend north of $200, and that's far outside the cost
Cost/benefit when benefit = 0 (Score:3)
I think cost is definitely a big part of it.
I don't think so for most people. You could literally give me an Apple watch and I still wouldn't wear it. It's not that I think it is a bad device. I just have absolutely no use for it and I'm not alone in that. I own a fitbit (a gift) and it never gets used. I think for most people it's not about the cost/benefit ratio. It's that the benefit = zero.
Re: (Score:3)
Fitness enthusiasts are a niche (Score:2)
Wearing during exercise is one of the primary benefits. The optical heart rate monitors are now as good as the chest straps.
Only if you feel the need to track data about your exercising. Frankly unless you are an elite athlete then you really are just tracking that for grins and giggles most likely or are a hardcore fitness enthusiast. It doesn't matter how good a job they do of it if you don't need to track your heart rate.
One only has to look at the waistline of most americans to know that most of them aren't terribly concerned about their heartrates.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessary (Score:2)
It's not for the tracking. An instantaneous heart rate readout is a measure of whether you are taking it too easy or about to send yourself to the hospital.
Real time measurement is tracking. And you don't genuinely need a heart rate monitor to gauge exertion unless you have some sort of medical condition. If a doctor tells you to keep a close eye on your heart rate then sure - do it. Most people demonstrably don't need that. They just need to get out and exercise and if their heart rate is high for a while they'll get tired and slow down. The human body is pretty good at self regulating that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Wearing during exercise is one of the primary benefits. The optical heart rate monitors are now as good as the chest straps.
Only if you feel the need to track data about your exercising. Frankly unless you are an elite athlete then you really are just tracking that for grins and giggles most likely or are a hardcore fitness enthusiast. It doesn't matter how good a job they do of it if you don't need to track your heart rate.
One only has to look at the waistline of most americans to know that most of them aren't terribly concerned about their heartrates.
Apple Watch can alert you if your heart rate increases without a corresponding increase in detected activity, in what could be a valuable screening tool for atrial fibrillation or other tachydysrhythmias. Something like that could have saved my aunt from a crippling stroke (secondary to undiagnosed atrial fibrillation) that has left her unable to speak or walk.
Niche! (Score:2)
Apple Watch can alert you if your heart rate increases without a corresponding increase in detected activity, in what could be a valuable screening tool for atrial fibrillation or other tachydysrhythmias.
You are making my point. That is the very definition of a niche use. Awesome for those who need it but do you really think people are going to start buying watching for the incredibly unlikely chance they experience atrial fibrillation?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the cost. It's about the fact that they don't solve any problems for most of the people that might consider buying them.
Worse than that, they are very poor at the primary purpose of a watch: to tell time conveniently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
do something that smartphones cannot
The key is in the benefits. If smartphones didn't exist we'd all have wearables. But the reality is smartphones offer more while wearables aren't all that more convenient, especially since most require that you carry your smartphone anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a Microsoft Band and it could do text super well when responding or sending a message by tapping on the letters.
Think bigger (Score:2)
If you don't like wearing a watch and don't want to track your exercise, then you aren't really the target market for wearables mate.
Wrong. I'm saying the markets they are targeting are too narrow. I'm willing to wear a watch IF the watch does enough to make it worth the bother. The only time a watch makes sense with the current tech is the rare cases where a smartphone is too bulky or cumbersome which frankly isn't very often. It's just filling in a few corner cases rather than making a whole new market.
I'd love a device that:
1) tells me the time
2) shows what that beep my phone just made was about without having to get it out of my pocket
3) has a battery life that didn't suck
4) tracks my pulse and activity better than my phone can on it's own
5) doesn't look like it's been designed by a four year old
That's frankly not a very creative or useful device. Think bigger. You're imagining a better version of what already exists. I w
Surveillance (Score:2, Insightful)
Who would want continual, total, unchecked Surveillance of everything a person does? Not to mention runaway marketing!
Re: (Score:3)
Slow to Catch on in the US? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably all knockoffs.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an Apple Watch (Score:2)
I find it handy for rather simple things. Getting notifications and texts on my wrist means I don’t miss them any more. I find the timer app handy. Also, having an alarm clock on my wrist is preferable to the one on my nightstand - something I initially learned from my previous wearable, a Garmin Vivosmart.
That said, it’s still an open question whether this Watch will be followed by another one. The battery life isn’t great... and with watchOS 4 it got noticeably worse (heck, lots of stuff
Which Watch? (Score:2)
The battery life in the Apple Watch Series 3 is around 2.5 days now. With the increase in latent medical monitoring (like the irregular heart rate warnings) wearing a watch will make more and more sense as time passes, alongside the other benefits you noted.
Also the ability to truly just have a watch and ditch the phone is appealing in some situations (though I still think the U.S. carriers charge way too much for Watch plans, $10/month).
Re: (Score:2)
I have the Series 1. The drop in battery life closely coincided with the update to OS 4 - I was pretty happy with my two day battery life before that, but now I’m lucky if I can make it to a day and a half. And, unfortunately, rolling back isn’t a viable option.
Since I sleep with my watch on and charge it during the day while I’m at my desk, the drop is annoying because I now have less flexibility in picking a good time to charge it.
Re: (Score:2)
The screen on the Apple Watch has always been off most of the time. I think they achieved the speed through a more efficient CPU (that's also faster than older models), and probably better battery tech.
Whichever way you slice it, Series 3 has a big battery life boost form previous gen watches while being a faster watch.
Aiming at the wrong specs (Score:4, Informative)
I'm speaking about my personal tastes here. I don't claim to be representative of the general public.
I've been using a Pebble for years now, and find it very nearly indispensable. Since Pebble but the dust, though, I've been keeping an eye out for what to replace it with when it dies.
I can't find anything that meets my needs. The existing mart watches all suffer from the same flaw -- they're trying to be, essentially, "smartphones on a watch". In order to do that, they have to make serious sacrifices: they cost an arm and a leg, they have abysmal battery life, and they're much too large.
So currently, it looks like when my watch dies, I'll not be replacing it at all. The wearables market is simple not producing anything that actually meets my needs.
Re: Aiming at the wrong specs (Score:4, Interesting)
Pebble was going in the right direction. Inexpensive and a good battery life. Mine finally died and I got an LG Style when it was on sale. The battery life sucks and the vibration is weaker than the Pebble. But it does have features that the Pebble didn't have. I still would have went with another Pebble if they weren't bought out.
It seems like they are under the impression that people want to replace their smartphone instead of supplementing it. The tech critics aren't helping when they claim that lacking lte and gps is a problem. It will never replace the smartphone, unless you're a Dick Tracy fan, which means they will also have to put a camera on it. I keep hoping that Huawei or Asus will put out a new watch that only has the basics with an awesome battery life.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. I wanted to replace my old school Casio Data Bank DB150 calculator with a smartwatch, but smartwatches still suck. I don't want them to rely on smartphones. I still want them to be useful, small, light, long battery life, etc. :(
Well... What do you want in a wearable? (Score:2)
I would like a smartwatch, but here's what I want from one without a smartphone being handy:
- Watch
- Heart-Rate Monitor w/heart-rate alarms (let me know when I'm out of my 130-170bpm range)
- GPS and route navigation synced from phone in advance (good for riding a bike in a new area)
- Activity Monitor with Interval Alerts (sometimes I want to run intervals, let me kn
Yeah cuz (Score:1)
I want to like them (Score:3)
watch (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't worn a watch in years because I have my smartphone.
My compelling reason to wear a computer (other than the smartphone unobtrusively in my pocket) is ... ?
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't worn a watch in years because I have my smartphone.
My compelling reason to wear a computer (other than the smartphone unobtrusively in my pocket) is ... ?
Exactly how I feel! Why where a watch and have a phone on me. Watches make my wrist sweaty and for me, carrying a phone is more useful/comfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, I'm the reverse. I have a nice, though not fancy or ostentatious, watch and don't carry a phone.
Wearables don't appeal to me either though. Maybe if they ever get to the point that we can plug them into our heads or augmented reality glasses I'll think about it. As it is even my 8" tablet is annoyingly small and painful to use, it primarily serves as my reading device on the porcelain throne. My primary use for computers is to play games anyways and I think it'll be some decades before wearables or phon
I'm slow (Score:2)
What's the target demographic? (Score:3)
Quite frankly, who is the target audience? Hipsters are already buying them anyway, but there's even a limit to what techno junk they buy. Geeks won't touch something like this with a ten foot pole 'til they can eliminate the vendor lock-in and the total surveillance.
And, well, there isn't really that many other early adopters of technogadgets. If you want to sell something like this to the masses, they have to see a clear benefit, and there simply isn't one that their cellphone can't do satisfactory already.
Re: (Score:1)
Are these watches worth the money? Maybe not. Are they useful? Yes.
I own one and within 15 minutes of not wearing it I have caught myself looking for some piece of information on it only to find a blank arm.
Primary info I use: Temperature/weather, Date, Time, appointments, set timer, siri access/queries. It is amazing how certain functions, like a timer, become more used when they are readily available. It can also be used to provide quick text message responses, cancel alarms/incoming phone calls, find
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a fuck what label you decide to tack on me, just tell me what new word I have to use for "people who like technology but also understand it and are thus harder to convince that the technogarbage currently produced is worth paying for".
Too high, battery life too short (Score:2)
California just sort of told us not to do that. (Score:2)
California just told us not to keep our phones in our pockets. [engadget.com], which is a bit like "wearing" a device. Of course I keep mine in my pocket all the time. So far, no burns or bone tumors on my hip. I mean, we kind of sort of thought this whole issue of RF was put to bed didn't we? Here it is rearing its ugly head again.
I need a phone to function in modern society though. I don't need whatever it is "wearables" are offering right now.
Maybe some day the "fitness band" will be sophisticated enough to diagn
The one feature I would want would piss people off (Score:2)
I am absolutely horrible with names. Some sort of AR glasses which "stores" name+face data when people say "Hi I'm Jack Ass, Director of Marketing" and "This is my spoiled brat Chrissy riding her pony named 'Glue'" would be good. Then when I see them again, the names comes up, and the relationship info.
Now that I think of it, I think this technology was demonstrated in a Black Mirror episode. Probably not the best endorsement, but I did say it would piss people off...
Re: (Score:2)
That would be totally awesome! One of the better applications of AR.
Wristbands are bad at measuring heart rate (Score:2)
There isn't a large artery on top of your wrist, where fitness bands use an optical sensor to measure heart rate. The capillaries that they do sense typically lag behind the heartbeat, and have an inconsistent rhythm.
A fingertip sensor works much better, as does a chest strap (which is useless if you're hairy like I am).
But aside from amusement factor, a wrist band will only give you an approximation of your real heart rate, and it may be quite a bit off in either direction.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't a large artery on top of your wrist, where fitness bands use an optical sensor to measure heart rate. The capillaries that they do sense typically lag behind the heartbeat, and have an inconsistent rhythm. A fingertip sensor works much better, as does a chest strap (which is useless if you're hairy like I am). But aside from amusement factor, a wrist band will only give you an approximation of your real heart rate, and it may be quite a bit off in either direction.
The interosseous arteries in the wrist are almost certainly larger than any of the digital arteries that supply the fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
You may well be right -- I based my comment on this article: https://www.cnet.com/news/how-... [cnet.com]
Personally, I've tried wrist, earlobe, and handgrip monitors, and none of them have given me a consistent reading.
Re: (Score:2)
I just got a Mi Band 2 and the heart rate measurements are kind of crazy at times. In the space of about 15 minutes just sitting here my heart rate has gone from 116 to 41. If I believed it was accurate I'd probably make an appointment with a doctor. That said it's often close enough for my own amusement and curiosity.
It tracks sleep reasonably well although there is a lag from me going to sleep and it realizing I'm asleep - maybe a half-hour or so.
I don't take the steps as 100% accurate either but it
I liked my Samsung Gear 2 Neo... (Score:2)
Until I found out it was only compatible with my S6. The thing was only supported for like a year. Without its paired smartphone it's useless.
It's the same with Apple Watch - it only works with a compatible iPhone.
But while I had it - it kept track of heart rate, sleep patterns - all kinds of fun things.
Let's be honest... (Score:2)
...most wearables are about fitness tracking.
I don't need a $600 watch to tell me I'm a fatass and not getting enough exercise.
call me back when you have a web implant (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
chia pet + pet rock + marketing = tamagotchi
Re: (Score:2)
Google Fit on an Android smartphone is free and probably does enough for 99% of people.