Good article on the devices. My one thought running through every page is who still wears a watch? I know a lot of people who do not wear or do not like to wear watches.
I think I am more curious about when the in ear bullet will arrive with a phone in your pocket that can translate on the fly people speaking around you and have your smartphone push selected notifications to it.
First they need to make an in-ear device that doesn't leave my ear aching after an hour of talking. Maybe that's just me, but there's a reason hearing aids require special fitting and cost a ton of money (relatively speaking).
I can use non-custom in ear headphones for more than an hour without ache, it's highly subjective, tho also highly dependent on the design and tips used (and IEM usually have a far wider variety of that than BT devices).
That being said, for greatest comfort you'd want an actual in ear (canal) type of fit and not something that's resting outside... I'm not sure most people want that level of isolation on a 24/7 basis just to interact with their phones...
At least not until geeks start falling in love with operating systems.
I wouldn't call the comfort of in-ear devices subjective so much as highly dependent on the shape of your ears (and the device being used). I have clear differences in my ear shape on the left and right, oddly enough, so I can't even use my Bluetooth headset properly on my left ear unless I change the little piece that holds it in place. Fun times. :)
Agree. An in ear that isn't a pain in the @ss. I can do less than an hour.
I'm not a fan of cables and charging an in ear too.
I have a Plantronics over the ear hands free headset at work that has a portion that goes in the ear and I can leave it in all day. I have almost left the building with it on. But, I leave it at work and am happy to do so.
I wouldn't be interested in an over the ear outside of work. I guess I am just not cool enough to be one of those people who walk through the supermarket on the phone the whole time.
People are discussing wearables and are blindly talking about "finding the next big thing" without catching statements like yours.
Hearing aids require special fitting. They're expensive. They're also medical devices. There is a lot a design company can do when it comes to redesigning medical equipment. Instead of weird cylinders or sloped rounded shapes, a big tech company could do some research with ear doctors to find a really good way of making generalized in-ear devices (several sizes, or different attachments). That kind of design is what changes an industry. It'll allow new form factors AND the regular old stuff, but at vastly-reduced prices and with far more style.
Custom fit is ultimately the best solution, and it doesn't have to be that expensive... Used to be you needed to drop a grand for any decent CIEM, whereas you cab get them for under $400 these days.
Hell, Etymotics has an offer where they make you custom tips for their hf line of IEM for $100 all in, you just give the voucher to the ear doc and they take care of the rest... If a small outfit like them can manage it for $100, surely larger companies can do it for less.
Bragi Dash (http://bragi.com) is most of the way there. In-ear wireless speakers with a bunch of sensors that connects to your phone over Bluetooth. It uses a bone-conduction mic, though, so it wouldn't work for your real-time translation scenario. A clever app dev, though, could probably come up with a way to use the phone's mic for that. Place the phone on the table between you, stick an ear bud in, and start talking ... the phone translates and plays it back through the ear bud.
They also have support for notifications and whatnot. And Google Now running through it covers a lot of ground.
Downside is only 4 hours of battery life. You can double that if you use only 1 ear bud at a time.
For the last fifteen years, I've only worn a watch when dressing up a bit for social occasions etc... But even the basic out-of-the-box functionality of the 360 lured me to wear one on a daily basis again and I really like it.
Heck, I even kinda like not having to dig my phone out to tell time... The overall package is definitely a luxury convenience, I could live without it for sure, but it makes certain busy days a whole lot easier.
Ultimately it's a personal thing, how much value you see in smart watches will depend a lot on your job, how much time you spend in front of a computer or with your hands busy, etc. To dismiss it at face value because you don't wear a watch anymore is pretty short sighted tho.
I wear a watch on a daily basis, and actually feel kind of naked without it. In fact, I almost can't tell time when I forget my watch, even though I have a phone in my pocket or hand at all times ... I still look at my wrist first and usually just go "ah crap" without checking my phone.
I wear my watch on the bottom of my wrist (military style, or European style, or upside down, whatever you want to call it), which makes it very convenient to check the time while driving, or walking, or while holding things (like books). Much more convenient than trying to find my phone, or to stare down at the centre console in the car or to find a clock somewhere.
Now, that being said, I don't see a purpose to most of the smartwatches and fitness bands out there. I tend to not move my arms while walking, usually because they're holding my phone or a book, so I don't have much faith in "step counters" that don't attach to the parts that are "stepping". Most are also calibrated for the top of the wrist when it comes to heart rate monitoring, and I've yet to see a review that tested them on the bottom of the wrist. I also turn down my notifications (actually turn off cell/wifi radios via JuiceDefender) on the phone to only check every 30 minutes so not taking my phone out every 30 seconds isn't an issue.
"My one thought running through every page is who still wears a watch?"
WOW. That is an original observation. I have never once, in the past three years, heard anyone make this claim before...
So you don't want to wear a watch? Fine, the party will move on without you and you won't be missed. But what exactly do you expect an article on WEARABLES to talk about when the only damn wearable form factor that has any traction today is the watch/band? We're discussing here the wearables that one can buy today or, at least, in the next three months, not fantasies of what may be available in five years.
I wear one as a fashion accessory. Or I did, prior to the battery dying and the watch back needing enough pressure to compress graphite into a diamond to be put back on. Contrary to popular belief, how you look does matter.
Lots of people. We may not use it to tell time, but it is a great fashion accessory, especially for men, who are typically limited (albeit, by social standards, but that's a separate issue) in their options for wearable accessories. I've used my collection of watches as a great conversation starter (it's usually them who initiate, too!) with the numerous women I've bedded. A nice watch can complete that look along with a greatly tailored suit. So again, while maybe not used as often these days for its original intended purpose, watches are still worn by many people.
I've worn a watch since I was ~7 years old, and still do to this day. But being toward the end of the "baby boomer" generations, it's probably much more prevalent in mine, than in following generations.
Phones/smartphones are okay for some functions, but I still find it much easier to just glance at my wrist to tell the time, than to pull out the phone. After 4+ decades of wearing a watch, it's unlikely I'd go without one, as it wouldn't feel natural.
I stoped wearing watches because there was no need to wear a timekeeping/alarm device when the phone could do all this better and have many more functions. Now I feel naked without my smartwatch (like I used to feel before when I forgot my watch prior to smartphones) because with the watch I have the convienience of not having to retrieve a phone from my pockert to tell the time. I also no longer have to get the phone out to see whos calling to see if I care enough to fish it out to answer. I can see whis sent me aa sms and read the sms, and even send back pre-canned replies (useful for common replies such as "otw", "5 minutes out", "yes yes I wont forget to get it ") without getting out the phone.
And im less likely to miss a call/sms/alarm/reminder with the wrist vibration (get your mind out of the gutter, yes I mean you!) when in noisy environments such as night clubs, train stations etc.
Your use cases aren't great, you either have: a) fitness fanatics who love technology. I know plenty of people who stay fit and none of them need some device to tell them how they are doing. They kind of know as they live in the body in question. It's a market but its not very big. b) people who can't be bothered taking their smart phone out of their pocket, which is all those watches enable - a short cut to see something your smart phone could show you.
The watch case make a little sense, if the watch was cheap enough (i.e. very cheap), but the whole point of wearables from a manufacturers point of view is their are something new that they can completely overcharge for.
The only one that really makes sense is google glass, but everyone has gone all 17 century on that and decided it's the work of the devil and all users need to be burned.
Obviously it would have to be a fashion accessory as once the watch was (and still is for some) to make sense spending millions into developing and marketing these devices. I wouldn't really use one if it doesn't have a semi-independent system running it's own apps, having it's own gps-receiver and so on. Though I have no use of having a cellular modem/radio in every device. Plus I don't wear jewelry so I don't see point of spending hundreds of dollars on one.
For working out you don't really need to spend money, sure I was into mountain biking once but you don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on a cycle computer, you didn't need to about 20 years ago. Most people don't really need to collect those stats any way like these devices enable. Some other gear might cost you quite a lot though. But no need to really spend it on accessories. If you want to monitor your heart rate you don't need to spend more than a tens of dollars. If you want gps there is still a lot cheaper devices then say fitbit. Giving value to these devices will get tougher. Though I do see why companies like TomTom want to be in the game.
Sure you dont need to do it but it does have benefits. For example Strava has an excellent fatigue graph it collects over time. Before a big race, you can adjust your prep accordingly to reduce your fatigue.
But what's the value added over a simple heart rate monitor, learning a thing or two, and doing it enough to just "know yourself"? People have been training based on fatigue or maximum exertion percentage for a long time now. As former triathlete and fitness nut, I just don't see how these things get going. A decent heart rate monitor is what, $20. Get a bike computer for another $20. You have the distance/speed already on any treadmill or stationary bike. So we're basically just talking runners, or bikers that MUST have a GPS.
I just have a really hard time seeing very many fitness nuts spending $100-200 on this thing, and applications outside fitness seem very pointless as well. So you get notifications on your wrist? You don't have to take out your smart phone? How much money are people going to be willing to pay for THAT? Maybe it won't get the backlash of Google Glass, but I see it failing in a similar way, as a novelty 5% of your friends will show off to you, while you go "eh, you payed how much for that?", and 3 years later its mostly dead.
Fitbit actually has devices covering a lot of price ranges... I wanted something to monitor my runs, not because I need it (I've been running for the past 15 yrs since high school without it), but it appeals to my geek sensibilities.
I wasn't interested in all day tracking, I KNOW I'm a sedentary geek, don't need to be told... So I ended up buying the cheapest Fitbit Zip model which is a little $50 clip on thing, and I only wear it in on runs or when I go biking.
As far as I can tell it works as well as any pedometer, and it's easier to use and better connected than any other device at the price range. I continue using it even after getting a Wear watch because I'd rather not run with a leather strap, or any kind of visible watch for that matter.
Nope, the Zip keeps chugging along, Best Buy still has them in stock all the time, etc. It's pretty solid for $50, specially if you just want it to track specific workouts as I do rather than all day monitoring. It even syncs up with Android devices now, which wasn't possible originally.
$200 for a decent smart watch doesn't seem like a terrible value proposition to me, having enjoyed the convenience of one and knowing what I'd otherwise pay for a nice looking watch that I wouldn't use nearly as much.
"b) people who can't be bothered taking their smart phone out of their pocket, which is all those watches enable - a short cut to see something your smart phone could show you."
So your argument is, "people won't pay for convenience"? Yeah, good luck with that. 90% of what's sold in America, from McDonalds and Starbucks to dog walking and gardening services to microwave ovens and dishwashers are based not on "could *I* do this myself?" but on "I'd rather pay more for convenience!"...
Simple. Make a product that doesn't suck. Let's look at a Smartwatch of today: - Shitty battery life - Weak performance - Difficult to see in sunshine - Not really useful for anything - Bloody expensive !
No wonder (almost) nobody buys them. Suggestions: - Use E-INK ffsake!A watch should be visible at anytime without having it to turn on. It will also be perfectly visible in the sunshine and not consume power. - If you want colors, use OLED and a way to turn it on via motion (shaking?) so you can look at it without actually "touching" the device. - A permanent "deep sleep" mode, when not use only the detection sensor should be on. CPU, RAM, everything should be completely off and not consuming power. - Design a simple and efficient OS from scratch that can initialize in less than 2 seconds from some fast flash memory, basically fast-booting every time you look at it, other than that the device would be almost OFF and not consuming power. PC Os'es like Linux (on which Android is based are NOT GOOD for these kind of devices!) - No fancy animations and stuff in the interface, just simplicity and efficiency. THIS IS NOT A PHONE OR COMPUTER! It's a WATCH. - Camera ? Putting a camera on a wrist watch ? That's madness ! Useless feature of the century... - In time it will become cheap if a lot of people like them, consider them useful and buy them.
I know almost nobody from the tech companies will read this comment but... whatever.
I can agree with most of this. It comes down to simplicity doesn't it? It seems the smaller the device the more simpler it should be. So, if we are talking about a watch then keep the UI/UX as simple as possible. Have tried using the Moto360 and man what a useless PoS. I have a feeling the apple watch with be more of the same. In my opinion MSFT is on to something with their fitness band. The design and "feel" just needs a couple of revisions...it's just a tad too bulky. But, keep it simple!
"Design a simple and efficient OS from scratch that can initialize in less than 2 seconds" Linux is able to do that, provided that you don't need to run a virtual machine to execute all of the applications and you don't load all of the modules you can get in a standard linux tarball off of the repo for armv7 kernels.
My Microsoft Band takes 4 seconds from the moment you push the power button to being completely booted and usable for all features. I'm not sure why any other watch takes longer.
Uhh, there are already smart watches that use OLED displays, and smart watches that are perfectly visible in daylight (OLED or otherwise), and smartwatches that respond to motion (pretty much every Wear device? the 360's more sensitive mode burns a little more battery but it's very responsive).
Seems to me you haven't looked very closely at much of the options in the market... The biggest issue is really battery life, but adjusting to 1-2 days of battery life hasn't been a big deal to me. We already did it once when we went from feature phones to smartphones after all...
If that is what you want, buy a Pebble today. I have one and I like it. But I don't see the harm in others pushing the envelope to try to see what this form factor might be capable of.
To me the Apple solution (offloading all the serious work to the phone) makes more sense TODAY than the Tizen solution. (Google seems at a sort of intermediate point between the two, but I think is pushing the local CPU too hard). And I think a display tech like Mirasol is the way to handle color at low power.
But I think it's foolish to be too dogmatic about these issues. In particular, we don't know the expected ten year trajectory of all the pieces involved, from the energy supply side to the CPU power usage to the expected use cases. I suspect that - CPU energy usage is actually a much smaller issue than screen and wireless energy usage. Meaning that there's no real win in skimping on the CPU (assuming it is, of course, a power optimized fast sleep/fast wake CPU) BUT the OS and OS/app interaction model are critical in ensuring that almost all the time nothing is running.
- memory may be a substantial power drain. I would not be surprised if the primary reason for Apple's off-load model is limited DRAM rather than a wimpy CPU/desire to avoid using the CPU much [I also suspect, but maybe this is foolish, that Apple's battery life is going to be substantially longer than what they're suggesting in the press, that they're trying to calibrate expectations so that when they announce the actual battery life is 3 days rather than 1 day, people are awed and impressed. The reason I say this is that, compared to what's in a Pebble and the OS/app model, I can't see any serious sink of energy beyond a Pebble. Unlike Google/Tizen where there is all the "traditional" OS overhead and, I'm guessing, a lot more DRAM constantly draining away.]
- color may be "frivolous" but I suspect it's essential to "cross the chasm". I think accepting the limits of Mirasol (colors, but a limited palette) would be a more fruitful direction for Pebble if they want to remain viable than sticking with eInk.
Thinking "this is a watch plus; we'll architect the system that way" is a sure way to land up on the same path as Palm, Win CE, Nokia and other such "this is a phone plus" companies. These devices will NOT stay as just watches, even if that's the way they are perceived for the first two years or so.
The OLED displays already use flicking or shaking to turn on. That's still bad. I'd say we use the two-colour e-ink displays so you can get off (white), black, and red or something. There's no reason you need to see colour on it. The problem here, though, is that it's not really visible at night. Putting some kind of night-light feature on would be helpful. Part of me wonders if one could add a transparent OLED on top just for when it's dark.
Watches and phones already use deep-sleep features. They can last a week if the radios were turned off and no apps were causing the phone to wake every few minutes.
Designing an OS is actually very difficult, which is why you never ever see anything good in consumer electronics. Think of the OSes driving things like consoles or those screens in cars or printers.
Fancy animations are actually important. A watch with no extra graphical features just won't have that visual pull and will feel ugly. People won't want to wear them.
These devices will definitely become cheaper as CPUs are tailor-made for them and the processes shrink even more. In the meantime, though, these things will cost far more than they're really worth. I think the best bet might be to sell them along side a cheapish phone so you can offer a big subsidy for the combination.
With all of these smart watches being released, Dick Tracy is going to have a fit trying to find the right one. Unfortunately for him, fighting crime and solving cases is going to require a Bluetooth pairing to a compatible smartphone.
Garmin is huge among fitness buffs (cyclists - road and mountain, triathletes, marathoners) for tracking their training and races. They also have a few other devices that pick up the smartwatch theme: the more traditional but more expensive fitness tracker, the 920xt, and the just announced the Fenix 3, which combines the features of the 920xt with a more traditional round watch appearance and the Epix, which should appeal to outdoorsy types with the topographic maps display.
I am hardly a hardcore athlete, but I have been using the old garmin 310xt for a couple years now to track my cycling and running activities and had been using a fitbit one (until I lost it) to track my steps. I am interested in the vivoactive because it looks like it combines the fitness tracker, GPS, and smartwatch into a single device that I could see myself wearing everyday.
I agree. I couldn't cover everything and that device was actually launched in 2015 so it wasn't a good fit for the article. However, I'll reach out to Garmin and see if I can get a sample.
Thanks Stephen. I enjoyed reading the article and look forward to AT's future coverage of wearables.
Another advantage of the garmin devices that really appeals to me is that they are stand-alone devices that optionally connect to your smartphone. For me, this means that I can go for a run with just the watch (I hate hauling around my phone when running, which is why I picked up the 310xt in the first place) or I can go fro a bike ride with my phone in my hydration pack and still have access to texts and control my music.
The only downside to them is the Garmin Connect interface. I have been having a hard time lately getting my 310xt to sync, and because of that I had been thinking about moving away from garmin towards some other smartwatch type device (possibly fitbit surge,) but the new devices with the wifi and/or BT sync seem to eliminate the sync issues I have been having with my 310xt.
Garmin's vivosmart has many of the desired features except GPS. However, unlike many similar competitors, the vivosmart is 5 ATM rated - which is why I got it so water activities would not be a concern. Pairing/sync on unsupported phones is a pain but does work.
"Gyms of the future could contain NFC or Bluetooth enabled weights" Please, no. Whilst I can imagine NFC working well, bluetooth implies someone would have to charge the weights. And please, just think about that for a second. Also, imagine a gym, usually a gym has multiple kinds of weights to be lifted, and they are stored usually in close proximity of one another. Imagine the bluetooth noise. If you're stacking weights, will you also register each weight individually with your smart device ? Or will the weights have a mesh network and then each smart device will act as a hub that will read the multicast data from each weight and then pick out the weights that report similar accelerometer output data to the smart device's accelerometer data ? Imagine the potential for all the proprietary standards and protocols and the battery drain.
Wearables as sensors work good if little to no user interaction is necessary to obtain meaningful data.
Anyway, IMO the best smartwatch today is the pebble steel, that being said, I've only played with some pebbles and some Samsung Smartwatches. And from my experience with them, I believe that the only functions a smartwatch can do reasonably well are sensor data capture, data transmission to a hub, simple input transfer to a hub and short string display. A smartwatch needn't have standalone apps, because today there are no user interfaces that would work well enough on a 1" display with a maximum of 6 buttons and some gestures and point-and-click touch screen. Of course, if battery and processor tech advances fast enough, maybe there'd be room for a smartwatch that can track hand movements over it (like LEAP motion), then there could be a case for standalone apps, but until then, let's not try and shove a half assed Android on a dual core SoC on my wrist and call it a watch.
Wireless charging is certainly possible, remember. And ultimately it would require a lot of smarts to detect proximity, verify the weights are in use, etc. It's a potential solution, but I don't know how many people are really tracking this stuff and if it would help. Of course, there's the old saying: "What gets tracked improves." It's why Target, Walmart, etc. monitor the performance of employees, because if they don't most will trend towards doing less rather than more.
I agree there are plenty of problems with that idea, hence no one is covering it now, but its still an interesting idea. Throw enough technology (and different technology than today's non-mesh bluetooth pairing annoyances) at it, and it might work.
I agree on wearables are most useful when they do most everything for you. Which is why, while the Push wearable is cool, I'm not super excited about it because of the manual data entry.
In my opinion, the biggest thing holding back wearables is the assumption that you have a smartphone handy. That smartphone link requirement on almost all wearables really eliminates many use cases where wearables would have a definitive advantage. Essentially wearables have been turned into a device intended to shave a few seconds from the time needed to grab your phone. That's not much gain for a lot of cost and the hassle of carrying around and charging yet another device.
Manufacturers need to think of a wearable without a smartphone. Obviously, that dramatically increases your sales base to those without smartphones. But also think about these uses:
(a) Think about women at work who often don't have pockets, often don't want to carry their purse everywhere, and often don't have a belt to attach a smartphone to. Wearables would be perfect for these office workers since they often don't have a smartphone on them. But no, the wearables force users to have a phone AND the wearable at the same time.
(b) Think about workers whose hands are often not available to reach for a phone or whose jobs prevent carrying around most phones (construction work, chefs, anyone who drives a lot, people working in wet environments, people working in information sensitive jobs where phones aren’t allowed, etc.) There are millions of people who can't have their phone with them, but of course, the wearables assume you have a phone right there.
(c) Think about the people at the gym who really don't want to carry around a bulky phone AND a wearable. I have a Jawbone Up24 and it has so much potential, but it is underutilized since I need my phone in front of me to see my workout as I workout (which is difficult for most equipment). Or think about people going out on the town, who don't want to lose an expensive phone with all their valuable information. Or think about people who want to go into the country (such as mountain climbing, forest hikes, beach walks) where cell phones die a quick battery death unable to maintain a connection.
I could go on and on for uses without a smartphone nearby.
The best wearable for me would have wi-fi, e-ink style screen, and a couple of useful sensors. It would turn on once a minute to update the e-ink clock, turn on wi-fi to get notifications, and display any notifications. Then it would go to sleep for another minute using virtually no power for the next 60 seconds. No smartphone would ever be needed, certainly not one nearby. It would have a long battery life. You can get all the data you actually need in nearly real-time, such as last-minute meeting requests or room changes. Almost everyone could use it. Then if you want to type a novel, email, etc, go to a computer, tablet or smartphone--don't try to cram computer uses into a tiny screen.
I think a lot of the people in category B (minus the sensitive data/govt workers) still carry their phone all day long... They just don't wanna grab it because their hands are busy, dirty, etc. The current crop of wearables are perfect for them, I'm in that category.
Truly useful wearables with built in data connections would strain batteries even harder and would require some cooperation with carriers as far as data plans etc. No one wants to pay a monthly fee for a wearable...
I traditionally have always wore a wrist watch as I like being able to know the time at a glance. I first jumped on the bandwagon with a Nike Fuelband but found it wasn't quite for me and this Christmas was gifted a Pebble Steel which I discovered is pretty much perfect for my use case. With the always on display I can see the date and time as well as the weather at a glance, the notifications save me time as I can see texts, phone calls and emails at a glance and avoid pulling out my phone for things that I don't need to respond to right away (or calls I would prefer to ignore) and it does (basic) fitness tracking as well. It also only needs to be charged (on average) every 5-7 days and at $200 it's just as affordable as decent wrist watch anyway. I was originally thinking I'd jump onto the Apple Watch bandwagon when it comes out but now I think I have everything I want out of a smart watch for now and will wait to see what happens when the wearable market matures.
Yeah, I've actually never been someone that needs to read every notification on the spot and will interrupt a conversation etc to take out my phone and see what's beeping... But having a Wear watch lets me stay on top of stuff better and use the phone even less.
I can certainly live without it, when I'm sitting in front of the computer at home I take it off... But it's a huge convenience most of the time, not having to look at the watch to see random texts, package delivery notifications, calendar reminders, music control, etc.
I'm not sure there'll ever be a "killer app", just like tablets, it's a luxury. Convenient and possibly more comfortable at times, but a luxury nonetheless and either you enjoy it or you don't. With fashion playing a bit more of a role and the cost of miniaturization, I'm not sure how feasible a race to the bottom will be.
To that I'll add, I never used voice search on my phone because once it's on my hand it's almost always quicker to type... But I've found myself using it on a watch for quick simple answer queries.
"What do you desire from an AnandTech wearable review?"
I'd like to know if there's any "killer application" which might convince me of their usefulness. I'm still using my Windows Mobiile 6.1 Dumbphone, so that would be pretty hard.
During the Apple Watch keynote, Tim Cook mentioned something about someone using the Apple Watch as a view finder for the camera. I'm sure that's probably not very interesting for most people, but it is for me. I've used my iPhone camera as something like a poor man's borescope. It would be interesting to be able to use the Apple Watch for that.
I'm betting that some very creative and enterprising developer out there will come up with apps we've never thought of.
I thought the black 360 looked cheaper than the silver one too Stephen, at least when I first saw them in person side by side. I think any wearable evaluation is gonna require a degree of, well, wear-in testing...
I know AnandTech has never been about rushing reviews, but there are issues that will crop up with these devices only after wearing them for a month (like my grey 360 band sweat staining, the aftermarket brown one I replaced it with has fared better and it's more supple).
Further, there are issues only some users will experience (like the allergic reactions to some Fitbit bands), I know having more than one reviewer on any one product has always been tricky for AT but still...
I think that is very important that voice recognition must be available when there is no Wi-fi or celular data. So you could still use it while driving for example. I have experience that android voice recognition is mainly for when you have data connection. Right?
I'm most excited about wearables moving past smartphones. I love the idea of Google Glass mixed with Erghis Sphere or Leap Motion style hand detection to interact rather than a brick like a smartphone. Then a watch style wearable may hold the compute power while the optics provide the GUI. I'd love to see these run on movement based energy though- or at the least body heat!
Nice article - i find it aligns with my own thoughts pretty well. I jumped onto the fitbit line with the Charge HR, and I think I'll pick up a moto 360 successor when it is out.
Battery life obviously. I think the most important aspect of a wearable's display might be readability in light - you might be least likely to have your phone out when you're outside walking around. Watches also endure to some level more wear via hitting things i.e. Walls, desks, etc, so maybe some kind of scratchability test, if that doesn't violate any terms with the company or something.
Water resistant to 50m is not "incredible", it's just adequate. The two "real" watches I use are rated to 200m; I have routinely found that 50m-rated watches will not stand repeated dunks in a pool to no more than 2m. And as a use case, consider swimming, where I would like to count both strokes and laps, each of which should have a different signature on the accelerometer. There are devices that are useful for pacing (like a metronome for strokes) but they are all standalone and "dumb", they don't interface to anything.
I would have been interested in the Fitbit Surge, but man, did they miss the ball with the price point. It's the same price as the Moto 360 and more expensive than several other smartwatches, and "only" 100 dollars less than the base Apple Watch. At that price, it's just not feature competitive with them. It doesn't do enough yet, it's just like a Charge HR except with GPS and the ability to put in what you're doing right on the watch instead of on a seperate device later. I don't think that's worth the markup. But it certainly would be interesting at a lower price.
I can say what I want. I want something to track runs, rides etc so I can leave phone at home. I want bumpers to protect screen and I would like to think about e-ink screen. I won't be watching movies on it. The microsoft band is close in many ways to what I want but the screen could be smaller and durability is an issue. Also I hear it cannot track rides.
Anyway test durability, battery life, GPS, heart rate function then all the other junk.
I should also mention that I want control over my data. I don't want to pay a third party to download my data. I want the device to work with my device. Android, iPhone, or Windows phone.
I would like to have some emphasis on the extendability of the machine - maybe it's not specific to a specific model, but it's interesting. You'd like to know what's behind the borders of the wearable itself
Out of all devices, I would love MS Band that is waterproof (not just splash resistant) and able to count laps in the pool. If it also survives 10m dives and measures depth, even better. Garmin has stuff I like (except too bulky), but not for the price I am willing to pay :) Samsung thingy that allows you to even make phone calls is also interesting, although I have a phone for that, I don't need another one on my wrist (yet; several versions later I might even buy it).
As for review, well battery life is obviously the big one. But most important part should be - why would you want that device? Focus on the purpose of the device and review from that perspective. Android wear devices all serve the same "phone companion" purpose, but not all other devices do, at least not to the same extent. And please, if you are a bunch of couch potatoes that will never be caught doing any other exercise than the naked one, don't review fitness devices :)
It might be time to finally create a standardized test for reflectance. Can you rig up a light box with a specific light output and a camera port at a certain distance and angle, so you can measure the contrast between white and black on the screen at 200 nits?
The screen quality is actually desperately important. Half the reason people wear watches is for the delight of it. The screen on a wearable has to have that 'real' look or it just ruins the whole design.
Cost is always something that gets mentioned. I don't get it. Watch is a jewelry in addition to time teller. To buy a good classic watch, you will need to spend £100/$100 to thousands. As an adult, why would you want to be seen wearing a plastic G-shock watch?
I used to wear a selection of Swiss watches. But I long for phone notifications on my wrist. While Pebble Steel was far from perfect in terms of style, it's the closest thing you can get to a watch replacement: - Always-on display - Basic handling of notifications - View calendar and reminders - Days up to a week of battery-life
What is ideal is a round smartwatch with thin edges for the always-on e-ink display. Moto 360 was very tempting for its styling, but the battery life and display shows it's not a watch replacement. In fact, a Swiss styled mechanical watch with notification display in the background would be the perfect classic watch replacement. It'll last weeks because there's no silly sensors.
So while your use-cases are good. But I think a 4th can be added (or the smartwatch use-case can be adopted): Watch replacement. A smartwatch doesn't need to have that killer app, just saving the few seconds of bringing up a phone is more than enough. To replace a jewelry the device needs to be a jewelry, the electronics inside isn't as important.
The only one I like here is the Gear Fit. But then again its fully compatible with Samsung phones only, which is a shame. I am looking forward for the Lenovo e-Ink one which will come out at March.
PS: I am a regular watch wearer by the way, automatics, so no, I am not nearly crazy enough to replace my watch with these toys, I just need one to have notifications on my wrist.
Far from the fargone conclusion, I find the Apple Watch and other wearables to be answering a problem no one had with a solution the majority have rejected in prior decades. People don't wear watches. They don't like being reminded by this thing strapped to your wrist of the finite amount of time they have, so why would they want to wear a watch?
I think for wearables to work, they must follow in the way of smartphones and improve something that people already do. Tablets worked because they essentially cribbed off smartphones, but made it bigger and said, "You know you how you used to read a book? Now you can read a tablet."
That's it.
When you look at watches, it's like the argument is they want phones to be so large you don't want to get them out, which seems like they're just undermining phones to make watches more relevant.
And people already didn't want to wear watches. So they'll just keep buying smaller phones instead. I think something like Google Glass or even just a pair of sunglasses with voice recognition and a bluetooth connection to your phone will likely work a LOT better.
Mostly because who doesn't wear glasses? Either prescription glasses or sunglasses... just about everyone wears glasses of some sort.
A round pebble steel with wireless charging (though the magnetic induction is better than a regular cable) and I would be sold.
Its pricey but I am also interested in the Withings Activite. One of the only companies to take design seriously. Swiss movement mechanical watch that does step tracking, lap swimming, etc. Only thing its missing is some sort of notification light. 8 months battery life. If you don't want the quality you can get the visually identical Activite Pop without swiss movement, sapphire crystal or leather strap. Only thing is, this really is more of a fitness only watch vs. a "smart" watch.
As for smart watch reviews.... Battery Life test (of different modes), daylight readability, nighttime readability (including tests for backlit devices to test if its too bright say in a movie theatre to be always on). Functionality of course and phone interoperability (ie. all functions available paired with iOS vs. paired with Android and what specific phones - Samsung wearables sometimes only fully support Samsung phones). Pairing issues itself.
Lots of photos because style is much more important, on a variety of wrists, perhaps showing what it would look like on a female's wrist for comparison to gauge size.
I am not sure what the use case for a smart watch is, other than to tell time. Im the sort of person who hates using blutooth headset in public (and am annoyed by others that do) so I am not sure I would ever speak to my watch a la dick tracy, but a notification light might be handy, maybe something to pause music or the apple tv when at home, etc.
The date and day on the Activite appears to be missing. It may seem like a very minor thing, but that is something that makes me hesitant about switching from my current watch. They also don't seem to mention how long the device can function away from a smartphone.
Using their heart rate and blood oxygen sensors wouldn't be feasible in such a package, but it would be nice if they made a companion device that's sole purpose was to continuously track them.
Good article. One device that seems to be overlooked (and I think it's fine) was the sixth generation iPod nano (the square one). It wasn't directly a watch but they made a band for it so you could wear it like one. Even the lock screen was an analog clock face.
Not interested in the goofy watches. Not interested in the glasses because they look silly. Make me some shades that look like shades and we could talk. Until then, I'm all set for my trusty smartphone, my laptop, and my custom built desktop. All this wearable crap seems like a desperate play for growth by these big companies when there really isn't demand for something like that.
I don't know a single person who thinks they need a smartwatch. By contrast, when smartphones were first taking off everyone was talking about how they wanted it. On a smartwatch's best day, the reaction is, "neat, but I'll pass."
I do however think there could be a market for the glasses, but not until they don't look like something the doc from Back to the Future would wear. Until then, I'm out.
You left out mybasis peak - my current wearable. I like it - mostly a basic watch that tracks everything I want to, but has HR and a good app/web dashboard to analyze.
I'm one of the people that has yet to see a need for the wearable, but my wife uses her Fitbit a LOT, and it's changed some aspects of her daily routine.
For the fitness side of things, one of the aspects of devices I would like to see reviewed is accuracy. I have two data points (not enough for a full conclusion, but definately enough for an opinion) on fitness trackers accuracy and I would like to see that expanded.
When you review things with pedometers, compare their recorded steps to actual steps. I tried to use an app on my smart phone, and it recorded 15 steps when I shook the phone a few times, and 8 steps while I took my dogs on a 2 mile walk. We've also put my wife’s FitBit on our dogs collar while playing fetch. That earned her 800 extra steps for the day in about 10 minutes.
The other options like calories burned and active minutes tracked seem very suspect to me on many devices. The amount of assumptions you have to make to get from something like hear rate to calories is pretty large, and I doubt this is very accurate.
$125 Citizen Eco drive (no battery; runs forever) watch is much better value compared to $300 wearable, which only coverts my pocket watch (phone watch function) into a wrist watch. Wearable has to lot more (blood pressure measurement, blood glucose measurement, medicine injection, etc.) before it can justify claim on wrist, a very scarce real estate.
For those wondering whether anyone even wears watches anymore, I'm 6' 3" and virtually no chair I regularly come across is designed for my height or greater. Digging my phone out of a pocket that is at a < 90 degree angle to my torso is not even remotely convenient enough for me to forgo a watch, especially as phones grow in size.
And for me, the question is really why would I bother getting used to that? Less than a second to check the time, date, and day on my wrist or 5, 10, even 30 seconds for a big phone in a sturdy case stuck obstinately in my pocket; the choice is a flat out no-brainer.
My watch is, for all my purposes, completely waterproof, won't blind me at night, is completely invisible in terms of comfort, is more durable than a Nokia 3310, and needs a new battery every year and a half. Not a single smart watch, cell phone, or otherwise offers all of those features, especially not for under $60.
So yeah, I still wear a watch. When a smart watch manages to be waterproof down to 100M, low brightness, incredibly comfortable, nigh indestructible, and doesn't need to be charged for a year, then we'll talk.
What I don't want in a smartwatch: 1 microphone 2 camera 3 speaker
With the ability to surreptiously turn on these functions that various criminal and governmental (same thing these days really) organisations have my sony smartwatch that doesnt havr any of these features is perfect.
When I have an important/confidential meeting (e.g. doctor, financial consultant, business meeting, stripper ahem) I can leave the phone on but outside the room, within bluetooth range, and hold my conversation without any privacy implications while also still being able to receive important notifications (incoming calls, sms).
I dont need to be able to make/receive calls on the watch itself, thats what the phone is for.
It will be all about sensors, software ecosystem, looks and price.
Samsung doesn't get it.
microsoft half gets it.
Apple gets it, but of course, is a closed ecosystem (it's a mere 16% of the mobile market, regardless of what people in the USA think). Also, Apple skips on the sensors.
Intel's owned Basis has the sensors, but it looks like cr*p and support is....well... it's not buried on the Intel graveyeard to languish like all their other purchases.
Fitbit is a passing phenomenon, somebody will pick them up for dollars or they will just wither away in the next 3 years.
Then there are the specialists.... Polar.... Suunto.... Garmin and others.
They could theoretically do something wild: great looks, cross-platform (good support!), plenty of sensors, great for sportspeople... But they are too un-innovative, too slow and have too meager resources.
In the end, Apple will rule their own segment. Some people will mistakenly think it's the whole universe.
Samsung will spam with a huge portfolio and some of them will float - eventually.
LG doesn't get it.
THen there's the Swiss entry. It will happen this year or the next year from the Swatch group. They have too much to lose.
They know fashion like no other. They know how to brand. They have good distribution. Mass production. Software and really understanding smart wearables is not their thing.
The market is just barely starting to be carved out -- it can't even be divided yet.
But it looks like almost all of the offerings are "meh" at best.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
79 Comments
Back to Article
zachrohlfs - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Good article on the devices. My one thought running through every page is who still wears a watch? I know a lot of people who do not wear or do not like to wear watches.I think I am more curious about when the in ear bullet will arrive with a phone in your pocket that can translate on the fly people speaking around you and have your smartphone push selected notifications to it.
JarredWalton - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
First they need to make an in-ear device that doesn't leave my ear aching after an hour of talking. Maybe that's just me, but there's a reason hearing aids require special fitting and cost a ton of money (relatively speaking).Stephen Barrett - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
yeah I just had to return some in ear headphones cause of that. really not a fanImpulses - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I can use non-custom in ear headphones for more than an hour without ache, it's highly subjective, tho also highly dependent on the design and tips used (and IEM usually have a far wider variety of that than BT devices).That being said, for greatest comfort you'd want an actual in ear (canal) type of fit and not something that's resting outside... I'm not sure most people want that level of isolation on a 24/7 basis just to interact with their phones...
At least not until geeks start falling in love with operating systems.
JarredWalton - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
I wouldn't call the comfort of in-ear devices subjective so much as highly dependent on the shape of your ears (and the device being used). I have clear differences in my ear shape on the left and right, oddly enough, so I can't even use my Bluetooth headset properly on my left ear unless I change the little piece that holds it in place. Fun times. :)eanazag - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Agree. An in ear that isn't a pain in the @ss. I can do less than an hour.I'm not a fan of cables and charging an in ear too.
I have a Plantronics over the ear hands free headset at work that has a portion that goes in the ear and I can leave it in all day. I have almost left the building with it on. But, I leave it at work and am happy to do so.
I wouldn't be interested in an over the ear outside of work. I guess I am just not cool enough to be one of those people who walk through the supermarket on the phone the whole time.
mkozakewich - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
People are discussing wearables and are blindly talking about "finding the next big thing" without catching statements like yours.Hearing aids require special fitting. They're expensive. They're also medical devices.
There is a lot a design company can do when it comes to redesigning medical equipment. Instead of weird cylinders or sloped rounded shapes, a big tech company could do some research with ear doctors to find a really good way of making generalized in-ear devices (several sizes, or different attachments). That kind of design is what changes an industry. It'll allow new form factors AND the regular old stuff, but at vastly-reduced prices and with far more style.
Impulses - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
Custom fit is ultimately the best solution, and it doesn't have to be that expensive... Used to be you needed to drop a grand for any decent CIEM, whereas you cab get them for under $400 these days.Hell, Etymotics has an offer where they make you custom tips for their hf line of IEM for $100 all in, you just give the voucher to the ear doc and they take care of the rest... If a small outfit like them can manage it for $100, surely larger companies can do it for less.
phoenix_rizzen - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Bragi Dash (http://bragi.com) is most of the way there. In-ear wireless speakers with a bunch of sensors that connects to your phone over Bluetooth. It uses a bone-conduction mic, though, so it wouldn't work for your real-time translation scenario. A clever app dev, though, could probably come up with a way to use the phone's mic for that. Place the phone on the table between you, stick an ear bud in, and start talking ... the phone translates and plays it back through the ear bud.They also have support for notifications and whatnot. And Google Now running through it covers a lot of ground.
Downside is only 4 hours of battery life. You can double that if you use only 1 ear bud at a time.
Impulses - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
For the last fifteen years, I've only worn a watch when dressing up a bit for social occasions etc... But even the basic out-of-the-box functionality of the 360 lured me to wear one on a daily basis again and I really like it.Heck, I even kinda like not having to dig my phone out to tell time... The overall package is definitely a luxury convenience, I could live without it for sure, but it makes certain busy days a whole lot easier.
Ultimately it's a personal thing, how much value you see in smart watches will depend a lot on your job, how much time you spend in front of a computer or with your hands busy, etc. To dismiss it at face value because you don't wear a watch anymore is pretty short sighted tho.
phoenix_rizzen - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I wear a watch on a daily basis, and actually feel kind of naked without it. In fact, I almost can't tell time when I forget my watch, even though I have a phone in my pocket or hand at all times ... I still look at my wrist first and usually just go "ah crap" without checking my phone.I wear my watch on the bottom of my wrist (military style, or European style, or upside down, whatever you want to call it), which makes it very convenient to check the time while driving, or walking, or while holding things (like books). Much more convenient than trying to find my phone, or to stare down at the centre console in the car or to find a clock somewhere.
Now, that being said, I don't see a purpose to most of the smartwatches and fitness bands out there. I tend to not move my arms while walking, usually because they're holding my phone or a book, so I don't have much faith in "step counters" that don't attach to the parts that are "stepping". Most are also calibrated for the top of the wrist when it comes to heart rate monitoring, and I've yet to see a review that tested them on the bottom of the wrist. I also turn down my notifications (actually turn off cell/wifi radios via JuiceDefender) on the phone to only check every 30 minutes so not taking my phone out every 30 seconds isn't an issue.
name99 - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
"My one thought running through every page is who still wears a watch?"WOW. That is an original observation. I have never once, in the past three years, heard anyone make this claim before...
So you don't want to wear a watch? Fine, the party will move on without you and you won't be missed.
But what exactly do you expect an article on WEARABLES to talk about when the only damn wearable form factor that has any traction today is the watch/band? We're discussing here the wearables that one can buy today or, at least, in the next three months, not fantasies of what may be available in five years.
III-V - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I wear one as a fashion accessory. Or I did, prior to the battery dying and the watch back needing enough pressure to compress graphite into a diamond to be put back on. Contrary to popular belief, how you look does matter.JohnnyBoBells - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
Lots of people. We may not use it to tell time, but it is a great fashion accessory, especially for men, who are typically limited (albeit, by social standards, but that's a separate issue) in their options for wearable accessories. I've used my collection of watches as a great conversation starter (it's usually them who initiate, too!) with the numerous women I've bedded. A nice watch can complete that look along with a greatly tailored suit. So again, while maybe not used as often these days for its original intended purpose, watches are still worn by many people.aggiechase37 - Monday, January 19, 2015 - link
With the numerous women you've bedded? Remind me of the country song, so much cooler online.marvdmartian - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
I've worn a watch since I was ~7 years old, and still do to this day. But being toward the end of the "baby boomer" generations, it's probably much more prevalent in mine, than in following generations.Phones/smartphones are okay for some functions, but I still find it much easier to just glance at my wrist to tell the time, than to pull out the phone. After 4+ decades of wearing a watch, it's unlikely I'd go without one, as it wouldn't feel natural.
eldakka - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
I stoped wearing watches because there was no need to wear a timekeeping/alarm device when the phone could do all this better and have many more functions. Now I feel naked without my smartwatch (like I used to feel before when I forgot my watch prior to smartphones) because with the watch I have the convienience of not having to retrieve a phone from my pockert to tell the time. I also no longer have to get the phone out to see whos calling to see if I care enough to fish it out to answer. I can see whis sent me aa sms and read the sms, and even send back pre-canned replies (useful for common replies such as "otw", "5 minutes out", "yes yes I wont forget to get it ") without getting out the phone.And im less likely to miss a call/sms/alarm/reminder with the wrist vibration (get your mind out of the gutter, yes I mean you!) when in noisy environments such as night clubs, train stations etc.
Dribble - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Your use cases aren't great, you either have:a) fitness fanatics who love technology. I know plenty of people who stay fit and none of them need some device to tell them how they are doing. They kind of know as they live in the body in question. It's a market but its not very big.
b) people who can't be bothered taking their smart phone out of their pocket, which is all those watches enable - a short cut to see something your smart phone could show you.
The watch case make a little sense, if the watch was cheap enough (i.e. very cheap), but the whole point of wearables from a manufacturers point of view is their are something new that they can completely overcharge for.
The only one that really makes sense is google glass, but everyone has gone all 17 century on that and decided it's the work of the devil and all users need to be burned.
Penti - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Obviously it would have to be a fashion accessory as once the watch was (and still is for some) to make sense spending millions into developing and marketing these devices. I wouldn't really use one if it doesn't have a semi-independent system running it's own apps, having it's own gps-receiver and so on. Though I have no use of having a cellular modem/radio in every device. Plus I don't wear jewelry so I don't see point of spending hundreds of dollars on one.For working out you don't really need to spend money, sure I was into mountain biking once but you don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on a cycle computer, you didn't need to about 20 years ago. Most people don't really need to collect those stats any way like these devices enable. Some other gear might cost you quite a lot though. But no need to really spend it on accessories. If you want to monitor your heart rate you don't need to spend more than a tens of dollars. If you want gps there is still a lot cheaper devices then say fitbit. Giving value to these devices will get tougher. Though I do see why companies like TomTom want to be in the game.
Stephen Barrett - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Sure you dont need to do it but it does have benefits. For example Strava has an excellent fatigue graph it collects over time. Before a big race, you can adjust your prep accordingly to reduce your fatigue.wallysb01 - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
But what's the value added over a simple heart rate monitor, learning a thing or two, and doing it enough to just "know yourself"? People have been training based on fatigue or maximum exertion percentage for a long time now. As former triathlete and fitness nut, I just don't see how these things get going. A decent heart rate monitor is what, $20. Get a bike computer for another $20. You have the distance/speed already on any treadmill or stationary bike. So we're basically just talking runners, or bikers that MUST have a GPS.I just have a really hard time seeing very many fitness nuts spending $100-200 on this thing, and applications outside fitness seem very pointless as well. So you get notifications on your wrist? You don't have to take out your smart phone? How much money are people going to be willing to pay for THAT? Maybe it won't get the backlash of Google Glass, but I see it failing in a similar way, as a novelty 5% of your friends will show off to you, while you go "eh, you payed how much for that?", and 3 years later its mostly dead.
Impulses - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Fitbit actually has devices covering a lot of price ranges... I wanted something to monitor my runs, not because I need it (I've been running for the past 15 yrs since high school without it), but it appeals to my geek sensibilities.I wasn't interested in all day tracking, I KNOW I'm a sedentary geek, don't need to be told... So I ended up buying the cheapest Fitbit Zip model which is a little $50 clip on thing, and I only wear it in on runs or when I go biking.
As far as I can tell it works as well as any pedometer, and it's easier to use and better connected than any other device at the price range. I continue using it even after getting a Wear watch because I'd rather not run with a leather strap, or any kind of visible watch for that matter.
Penti - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I thought Fitbit discontinued or at least stopped developing all non-wrist stuff. But it appears they still sell their clip-based ones.Impulses - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
Nope, the Zip keeps chugging along, Best Buy still has them in stock all the time, etc. It's pretty solid for $50, specially if you just want it to track specific workouts as I do rather than all day monitoring. It even syncs up with Android devices now, which wasn't possible originally.Impulses - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
$200 for a decent smart watch doesn't seem like a terrible value proposition to me, having enjoyed the convenience of one and knowing what I'd otherwise pay for a nice looking watch that I wouldn't use nearly as much.name99 - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
"b) people who can't be bothered taking their smart phone out of their pocket, which is all those watches enable - a short cut to see something your smart phone could show you."So your argument is, "people won't pay for convenience"? Yeah, good luck with that.
90% of what's sold in America, from McDonalds and Starbucks to dog walking and gardening services to microwave ovens and dishwashers are based not on "could *I* do this myself?" but on "I'd rather pay more for convenience!"...
wavetrex - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Simple. Make a product that doesn't suck.Let's look at a Smartwatch of today:
- Shitty battery life
- Weak performance
- Difficult to see in sunshine
- Not really useful for anything
- Bloody expensive !
No wonder (almost) nobody buys them.
Suggestions:
- Use E-INK ffsake!A watch should be visible at anytime without having it to turn on. It will also be perfectly visible in the sunshine and not consume power.
- If you want colors, use OLED and a way to turn it on via motion (shaking?) so you can look at it without actually "touching" the device.
- A permanent "deep sleep" mode, when not use only the detection sensor should be on. CPU, RAM, everything should be completely off and not consuming power.
- Design a simple and efficient OS from scratch that can initialize in less than 2 seconds from some fast flash memory, basically fast-booting every time you look at it, other than that the device would be almost OFF and not consuming power. PC Os'es like Linux (on which Android is based are NOT GOOD for these kind of devices!)
- No fancy animations and stuff in the interface, just simplicity and efficiency. THIS IS NOT A PHONE OR COMPUTER! It's a WATCH.
- Camera ? Putting a camera on a wrist watch ? That's madness ! Useless feature of the century...
- In time it will become cheap if a lot of people like them, consider them useful and buy them.
I know almost nobody from the tech companies will read this comment but... whatever.
Schnydz - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I can agree with most of this. It comes down to simplicity doesn't it? It seems the smaller the device the more simpler it should be. So, if we are talking about a watch then keep the UI/UX as simple as possible. Have tried using the Moto360 and man what a useless PoS. I have a feeling the apple watch with be more of the same. In my opinion MSFT is on to something with their fitness band. The design and "feel" just needs a couple of revisions...it's just a tad too bulky. But, keep it simple!nevertell - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
"Design a simple and efficient OS from scratch that can initialize in less than 2 seconds"Linux is able to do that, provided that you don't need to run a virtual machine to execute all of the applications and you don't load all of the modules you can get in a standard linux tarball off of the repo for armv7 kernels.
XabanakFanatik - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
My Microsoft Band takes 4 seconds from the moment you push the power button to being completely booted and usable for all features. I'm not sure why any other watch takes longer.Impulses - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Uhh, there are already smart watches that use OLED displays, and smart watches that are perfectly visible in daylight (OLED or otherwise), and smartwatches that respond to motion (pretty much every Wear device? the 360's more sensitive mode burns a little more battery but it's very responsive).Seems to me you haven't looked very closely at much of the options in the market... The biggest issue is really battery life, but adjusting to 1-2 days of battery life hasn't been a big deal to me. We already did it once when we went from feature phones to smartphones after all...
name99 - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
If that is what you want, buy a Pebble today. I have one and I like it.But I don't see the harm in others pushing the envelope to try to see what this form factor might be capable of.
To me the Apple solution (offloading all the serious work to the phone) makes more sense TODAY than the Tizen solution. (Google seems at a sort of intermediate point between the two, but I think is pushing the local CPU too hard). And I think a display tech like Mirasol is the way to handle color at low power.
But I think it's foolish to be too dogmatic about these issues. In particular, we don't know the expected ten year trajectory of all the pieces involved, from the energy supply side to the CPU power usage to the expected use cases. I suspect that
- CPU energy usage is actually a much smaller issue than screen and wireless energy usage. Meaning that there's no real win in skimping on the CPU (assuming it is, of course, a power optimized fast sleep/fast wake CPU) BUT the OS and OS/app interaction model are critical in ensuring that almost all the time nothing is running.
- memory may be a substantial power drain. I would not be surprised if the primary reason for Apple's off-load model is limited DRAM rather than a wimpy CPU/desire to avoid using the CPU much
[I also suspect, but maybe this is foolish, that Apple's battery life is going to be substantially longer than what they're suggesting in the press, that they're trying to calibrate expectations so that when they announce the actual battery life is 3 days rather than 1 day, people are awed and impressed. The reason I say this is that, compared to what's in a Pebble and the OS/app model, I can't see any serious sink of energy beyond a Pebble. Unlike Google/Tizen where there is all the "traditional" OS overhead and, I'm guessing, a lot more DRAM constantly draining away.]
- color may be "frivolous" but I suspect it's essential to "cross the chasm". I think accepting the limits of Mirasol (colors, but a limited palette) would be a more fruitful direction for Pebble if they want to remain viable than sticking with eInk.
Thinking "this is a watch plus; we'll architect the system that way" is a sure way to land up on the same path as Palm, Win CE, Nokia and other such "this is a phone plus" companies. These devices will NOT stay as just watches, even if that's the way they are perceived for the first two years or so.
mkozakewich - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
The OLED displays already use flicking or shaking to turn on. That's still bad. I'd say we use the two-colour e-ink displays so you can get off (white), black, and red or something. There's no reason you need to see colour on it. The problem here, though, is that it's not really visible at night. Putting some kind of night-light feature on would be helpful. Part of me wonders if one could add a transparent OLED on top just for when it's dark.Watches and phones already use deep-sleep features. They can last a week if the radios were turned off and no apps were causing the phone to wake every few minutes.
Designing an OS is actually very difficult, which is why you never ever see anything good in consumer electronics. Think of the OSes driving things like consoles or those screens in cars or printers.
Fancy animations are actually important. A watch with no extra graphical features just won't have that visual pull and will feel ugly. People won't want to wear them.
These devices will definitely become cheaper as CPUs are tailor-made for them and the processes shrink even more. In the meantime, though, these things will cost far more than they're really worth. I think the best bet might be to sell them along side a cheapish phone so you can offer a big subsidy for the combination.
mrdude - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
With all of these smart watches being released, Dick Tracy is going to have a fit trying to find the right one. Unfortunately for him, fighting crime and solving cases is going to require a Bluetooth pairing to a compatible smartphone.mjcutri - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
One device (and manufacturer) that you left out of the discussion is the recently announced Garmin Vivoactive:https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/health...
Garmin is huge among fitness buffs (cyclists - road and mountain, triathletes, marathoners) for tracking their training and races. They also have a few other devices that pick up the smartwatch theme: the more traditional but more expensive fitness tracker, the 920xt, and the just announced the Fenix 3, which combines the features of the 920xt with a more traditional round watch appearance and the Epix, which should appeal to outdoorsy types with the topographic maps display.
I am hardly a hardcore athlete, but I have been using the old garmin 310xt for a couple years now to track my cycling and running activities and had been using a fitbit one (until I lost it) to track my steps. I am interested in the vivoactive because it looks like it combines the fitness tracker, GPS, and smartwatch into a single device that I could see myself wearing everyday.
Stephen Barrett - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I agree. I couldn't cover everything and that device was actually launched in 2015 so it wasn't a good fit for the article. However, I'll reach out to Garmin and see if I can get a sample.Thanks for the feedback
mjcutri - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Thanks Stephen. I enjoyed reading the article and look forward to AT's future coverage of wearables.Another advantage of the garmin devices that really appeals to me is that they are stand-alone devices that optionally connect to your smartphone. For me, this means that I can go for a run with just the watch (I hate hauling around my phone when running, which is why I picked up the 310xt in the first place) or I can go fro a bike ride with my phone in my hydration pack and still have access to texts and control my music.
The only downside to them is the Garmin Connect interface. I have been having a hard time lately getting my 310xt to sync, and because of that I had been thinking about moving away from garmin towards some other smartwatch type device (possibly fitbit surge,) but the new devices with the wifi and/or BT sync seem to eliminate the sync issues I have been having with my 310xt.
DBasic - Monday, January 19, 2015 - link
Garmin's vivosmart has many of the desired features except GPS. However, unlike many similar competitors, the vivosmart is 5 ATM rated - which is why I got it so water activities would not be a concern. Pairing/sync on unsupported phones is a pain but does work.nevertell - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
"Gyms of the future could contain NFC or Bluetooth enabled weights"Please, no. Whilst I can imagine NFC working well, bluetooth implies someone would have to charge the weights. And please, just think about that for a second. Also, imagine a gym, usually a gym has multiple kinds of weights to be lifted, and they are stored usually in close proximity of one another. Imagine the bluetooth noise. If you're stacking weights, will you also register each weight individually with your smart device ? Or will the weights have a mesh network and then each smart device will act as a hub that will read the multicast data from each weight and then pick out the weights that report similar accelerometer output data to the smart device's accelerometer data ? Imagine the potential for all the proprietary standards and protocols and the battery drain.
Wearables as sensors work good if little to no user interaction is necessary to obtain meaningful data.
Anyway, IMO the best smartwatch today is the pebble steel, that being said, I've only played with some pebbles and some Samsung Smartwatches. And from my experience with them, I believe that the only functions a smartwatch can do reasonably well are sensor data capture, data transmission to a hub, simple input transfer to a hub and short string display. A smartwatch needn't have standalone apps, because today there are no user interfaces that would work well enough on a 1" display with a maximum of 6 buttons and some gestures and point-and-click touch screen. Of course, if battery and processor tech advances fast enough, maybe there'd be room for a smartwatch that can track hand movements over it (like LEAP motion), then there could be a case for standalone apps, but until then, let's not try and shove a half assed Android on a dual core SoC on my wrist and call it a watch.
JarredWalton - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Wireless charging is certainly possible, remember. And ultimately it would require a lot of smarts to detect proximity, verify the weights are in use, etc. It's a potential solution, but I don't know how many people are really tracking this stuff and if it would help. Of course, there's the old saying: "What gets tracked improves." It's why Target, Walmart, etc. monitor the performance of employees, because if they don't most will trend towards doing less rather than more.Stephen Barrett - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I agree there are plenty of problems with that idea, hence no one is covering it now, but its still an interesting idea. Throw enough technology (and different technology than today's non-mesh bluetooth pairing annoyances) at it, and it might work.I agree on wearables are most useful when they do most everything for you. Which is why, while the Push wearable is cool, I'm not super excited about it because of the manual data entry.
dullard - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
In my opinion, the biggest thing holding back wearables is the assumption that you have a smartphone handy. That smartphone link requirement on almost all wearables really eliminates many use cases where wearables would have a definitive advantage. Essentially wearables have been turned into a device intended to shave a few seconds from the time needed to grab your phone. That's not much gain for a lot of cost and the hassle of carrying around and charging yet another device.Manufacturers need to think of a wearable without a smartphone. Obviously, that dramatically increases your sales base to those without smartphones. But also think about these uses:
(a) Think about women at work who often don't have pockets, often don't want to carry their purse everywhere, and often don't have a belt to attach a smartphone to. Wearables would be perfect for these office workers since they often don't have a smartphone on them. But no, the wearables force users to have a phone AND the wearable at the same time.
(b) Think about workers whose hands are often not available to reach for a phone or whose jobs prevent carrying around most phones (construction work, chefs, anyone who drives a lot, people working in wet environments, people working in information sensitive jobs where phones aren’t allowed, etc.) There are millions of people who can't have their phone with them, but of course, the wearables assume you have a phone right there.
(c) Think about the people at the gym who really don't want to carry around a bulky phone AND a wearable. I have a Jawbone Up24 and it has so much potential, but it is underutilized since I need my phone in front of me to see my workout as I workout (which is difficult for most equipment). Or think about people going out on the town, who don't want to lose an expensive phone with all their valuable information. Or think about people who want to go into the country (such as mountain climbing, forest hikes, beach walks) where cell phones die a quick battery death unable to maintain a connection.
I could go on and on for uses without a smartphone nearby.
The best wearable for me would have wi-fi, e-ink style screen, and a couple of useful sensors. It would turn on once a minute to update the e-ink clock, turn on wi-fi to get notifications, and display any notifications. Then it would go to sleep for another minute using virtually no power for the next 60 seconds. No smartphone would ever be needed, certainly not one nearby. It would have a long battery life. You can get all the data you actually need in nearly real-time, such as last-minute meeting requests or room changes. Almost everyone could use it. Then if you want to type a novel, email, etc, go to a computer, tablet or smartphone--don't try to cram computer uses into a tiny screen.
Impulses - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I think a lot of the people in category B (minus the sensitive data/govt workers) still carry their phone all day long... They just don't wanna grab it because their hands are busy, dirty, etc. The current crop of wearables are perfect for them, I'm in that category.Truly useful wearables with built in data connections would strain batteries even harder and would require some cooperation with carriers as far as data plans etc. No one wants to pay a monthly fee for a wearable...
bodonnell - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I traditionally have always wore a wrist watch as I like being able to know the time at a glance. I first jumped on the bandwagon with a Nike Fuelband but found it wasn't quite for me and this Christmas was gifted a Pebble Steel which I discovered is pretty much perfect for my use case. With the always on display I can see the date and time as well as the weather at a glance, the notifications save me time as I can see texts, phone calls and emails at a glance and avoid pulling out my phone for things that I don't need to respond to right away (or calls I would prefer to ignore) and it does (basic) fitness tracking as well. It also only needs to be charged (on average) every 5-7 days and at $200 it's just as affordable as decent wrist watch anyway. I was originally thinking I'd jump onto the Apple Watch bandwagon when it comes out but now I think I have everything I want out of a smart watch for now and will wait to see what happens when the wearable market matures.Impulses - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Yeah, I've actually never been someone that needs to read every notification on the spot and will interrupt a conversation etc to take out my phone and see what's beeping... But having a Wear watch lets me stay on top of stuff better and use the phone even less.I can certainly live without it, when I'm sitting in front of the computer at home I take it off... But it's a huge convenience most of the time, not having to look at the watch to see random texts, package delivery notifications, calendar reminders, music control, etc.
I'm not sure there'll ever be a "killer app", just like tablets, it's a luxury. Convenient and possibly more comfortable at times, but a luxury nonetheless and either you enjoy it or you don't. With fashion playing a bit more of a role and the cost of miniaturization, I'm not sure how feasible a race to the bottom will be.
Impulses - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
To that I'll add, I never used voice search on my phone because once it's on my hand it's almost always quicker to type... But I've found myself using it on a watch for quick simple answer queries.MrSpadge - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
"What do you desire from an AnandTech wearable review?"I'd like to know if there's any "killer application" which might convince me of their usefulness. I'm still using my Windows Mobiile 6.1 Dumbphone, so that would be pretty hard.
RT81 - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
During the Apple Watch keynote, Tim Cook mentioned something about someone using the Apple Watch as a view finder for the camera. I'm sure that's probably not very interesting for most people, but it is for me. I've used my iPhone camera as something like a poor man's borescope. It would be interesting to be able to use the Apple Watch for that.I'm betting that some very creative and enterprising developer out there will come up with apps we've never thought of.
Impulses - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I thought the black 360 looked cheaper than the silver one too Stephen, at least when I first saw them in person side by side. I think any wearable evaluation is gonna require a degree of, well, wear-in testing...I know AnandTech has never been about rushing reviews, but there are issues that will crop up with these devices only after wearing them for a month (like my grey 360 band sweat staining, the aftermarket brown one I replaced it with has fared better and it's more supple).
Further, there are issues only some users will experience (like the allergic reactions to some Fitbit bands), I know having more than one reviewer on any one product has always been tricky for AT but still...
Geoplace - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I think that is very important that voice recognition must be available when there is no Wi-fi or celular data. So you could still use it while driving for example. I have experience that android voice recognition is mainly for when you have data connection. Right?codylee - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I'm most excited about wearables moving past smartphones. I love the idea of Google Glass mixed with Erghis Sphere or Leap Motion style hand detection to interact rather than a brick like a smartphone. Then a watch style wearable may hold the compute power while the optics provide the GUI. I'd love to see these run on movement based energy though- or at the least body heat!codylee - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Www.spaceglasses.com - completes the above lolDrumsticks - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Nice article - i find it aligns with my own thoughts pretty well. I jumped onto the fitbit line with the Charge HR, and I think I'll pick up a moto 360 successor when it is out.Battery life obviously. I think the most important aspect of a wearable's display might be readability in light - you might be least likely to have your phone out when you're outside walking around. Watches also endure to some level more wear via hitting things i.e. Walls, desks, etc, so maybe some kind of scratchability test, if that doesn't violate any terms with the company or something.
Thanks for the article!
Baba G. Noush - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
Water resistant to 50m is not "incredible", it's just adequate. The two "real" watches I use are rated to 200m; I have routinely found that 50m-rated watches will not stand repeated dunks in a pool to no more than 2m. And as a use case, consider swimming, where I would like to count both strokes and laps, each of which should have a different signature on the accelerometer. There are devices that are useful for pacing (like a metronome for strokes) but they are all standalone and "dumb", they don't interface to anything.tipoo - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I would have been interested in the Fitbit Surge, but man, did they miss the ball with the price point. It's the same price as the Moto 360 and more expensive than several other smartwatches, and "only" 100 dollars less than the base Apple Watch. At that price, it's just not feature competitive with them. It doesn't do enough yet, it's just like a Charge HR except with GPS and the ability to put in what you're doing right on the watch instead of on a seperate device later. I don't think that's worth the markup. But it certainly would be interesting at a lower price.Sxotty - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I can say what I want. I want something to track runs, rides etc so I can leave phone at home. I want bumpers to protect screen and I would like to think about e-ink screen. I won't be watching movies on it. The microsoft band is close in many ways to what I want but the screen could be smaller and durability is an issue. Also I hear it cannot track rides.Anyway test durability, battery life, GPS, heart rate function then all the other junk.
Sxotty - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I should also mention that I want control over my data. I don't want to pay a third party to download my data. I want the device to work with my device. Android, iPhone, or Windows phone.junky77 - Thursday, January 15, 2015 - link
I would like to have some emphasis on the extendability of the machine - maybe it's not specific to a specific model, but it's interesting. You'd like to know what's behind the borders of the wearable itselfZizy - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
Out of all devices, I would love MS Band that is waterproof (not just splash resistant) and able to count laps in the pool. If it also survives 10m dives and measures depth, even better. Garmin has stuff I like (except too bulky), but not for the price I am willing to pay :)Samsung thingy that allows you to even make phone calls is also interesting, although I have a phone for that, I don't need another one on my wrist (yet; several versions later I might even buy it).
As for review, well battery life is obviously the big one. But most important part should be - why would you want that device? Focus on the purpose of the device and review from that perspective. Android wear devices all serve the same "phone companion" purpose, but not all other devices do, at least not to the same extent. And please, if you are a bunch of couch potatoes that will never be caught doing any other exercise than the naked one, don't review fitness devices :)
mkozakewich - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
It might be time to finally create a standardized test for reflectance. Can you rig up a light box with a specific light output and a camera port at a certain distance and angle, so you can measure the contrast between white and black on the screen at 200 nits?The screen quality is actually desperately important. Half the reason people wear watches is for the delight of it. The screen on a wearable has to have that 'real' look or it just ruins the whole design.
mkozakewich - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
Ooh, and make sure to call out the density of the display. There's no reason to be using 100dpi screens, for example.wyx087 - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
Cost is always something that gets mentioned. I don't get it. Watch is a jewelry in addition to time teller. To buy a good classic watch, you will need to spend £100/$100 to thousands. As an adult, why would you want to be seen wearing a plastic G-shock watch?I used to wear a selection of Swiss watches. But I long for phone notifications on my wrist. While Pebble Steel was far from perfect in terms of style, it's the closest thing you can get to a watch replacement:
- Always-on display
- Basic handling of notifications
- View calendar and reminders
- Days up to a week of battery-life
What is ideal is a round smartwatch with thin edges for the always-on e-ink display. Moto 360 was very tempting for its styling, but the battery life and display shows it's not a watch replacement. In fact, a Swiss styled mechanical watch with notification display in the background would be the perfect classic watch replacement. It'll last weeks because there's no silly sensors.
So while your use-cases are good. But I think a 4th can be added (or the smartwatch use-case can be adopted): Watch replacement. A smartwatch doesn't need to have that killer app, just saving the few seconds of bringing up a phone is more than enough. To replace a jewelry the device needs to be a jewelry, the electronics inside isn't as important.
Arbie - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
Great article! Thoughtful, well-presented in depth, and relevant. Lets have more of this caliber.Thanks.
ithehappy - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
The only one I like here is the Gear Fit. But then again its fully compatible with Samsung phones only, which is a shame.I am looking forward for the Lenovo e-Ink one which will come out at March.
PS: I am a regular watch wearer by the way, automatics, so no, I am not nearly crazy enough to replace my watch with these toys, I just need one to have notifications on my wrist.
HisDivineOrder - Friday, January 16, 2015 - link
Far from the fargone conclusion, I find the Apple Watch and other wearables to be answering a problem no one had with a solution the majority have rejected in prior decades. People don't wear watches. They don't like being reminded by this thing strapped to your wrist of the finite amount of time they have, so why would they want to wear a watch?I think for wearables to work, they must follow in the way of smartphones and improve something that people already do. Tablets worked because they essentially cribbed off smartphones, but made it bigger and said, "You know you how you used to read a book? Now you can read a tablet."
That's it.
When you look at watches, it's like the argument is they want phones to be so large you don't want to get them out, which seems like they're just undermining phones to make watches more relevant.
And people already didn't want to wear watches. So they'll just keep buying smaller phones instead. I think something like Google Glass or even just a pair of sunglasses with voice recognition and a bluetooth connection to your phone will likely work a LOT better.
Mostly because who doesn't wear glasses? Either prescription glasses or sunglasses... just about everyone wears glasses of some sort.
BuddyRich - Saturday, January 17, 2015 - link
A round pebble steel with wireless charging (though the magnetic induction is better than a regular cable) and I would be sold.Its pricey but I am also interested in the Withings Activite. One of the only companies to take design seriously. Swiss movement mechanical watch that does step tracking, lap swimming, etc. Only thing its missing is some sort of notification light. 8 months battery life. If you don't want the quality you can get the visually identical Activite Pop without swiss movement, sapphire crystal or leather strap. Only thing is, this really is more of a fitness only watch vs. a "smart" watch.
As for smart watch reviews.... Battery Life test (of different modes), daylight readability, nighttime readability (including tests for backlit devices to test if its too bright say in a movie theatre to be always on). Functionality of course and phone interoperability (ie. all functions available paired with iOS vs. paired with Android and what specific phones - Samsung wearables sometimes only fully support Samsung phones). Pairing issues itself.
Lots of photos because style is much more important, on a variety of wrists, perhaps showing what it would look like on a female's wrist for comparison to gauge size.
I am not sure what the use case for a smart watch is, other than to tell time. Im the sort of person who hates using blutooth headset in public (and am annoyed by others that do) so I am not sure I would ever speak to my watch a la dick tracy, but a notification light might be handy, maybe something to pause music or the apple tv when at home, etc.
Tams80 - Sunday, January 18, 2015 - link
The date and day on the Activite appears to be missing. It may seem like a very minor thing, but that is something that makes me hesitant about switching from my current watch. They also don't seem to mention how long the device can function away from a smartphone.Using their heart rate and blood oxygen sensors wouldn't be feasible in such a package, but it would be nice if they made a companion device that's sole purpose was to continuously track them.
MADPhoenix - Sunday, January 18, 2015 - link
Good article. One device that seems to be overlooked (and I think it's fine) was the sixth generation iPod nano (the square one). It wasn't directly a watch but they made a band for it so you could wear it like one. Even the lock screen was an analog clock face.aggiechase37 - Monday, January 19, 2015 - link
Not interested in the goofy watches. Not interested in the glasses because they look silly. Make me some shades that look like shades and we could talk. Until then, I'm all set for my trusty smartphone, my laptop, and my custom built desktop. All this wearable crap seems like a desperate play for growth by these big companies when there really isn't demand for something like that.I don't know a single person who thinks they need a smartwatch. By contrast, when smartphones were first taking off everyone was talking about how they wanted it. On a smartwatch's best day, the reaction is, "neat, but I'll pass."
I do however think there could be a market for the glasses, but not until they don't look like something the doc from Back to the Future would wear. Until then, I'm out.
eric678 - Monday, January 19, 2015 - link
You left out mybasis peak - my current wearable. I like it - mostly a basic watch that tracks everything I want to, but has HR and a good app/web dashboard to analyze.loki1725 - Monday, January 19, 2015 - link
I'm one of the people that has yet to see a need for the wearable, but my wife uses her Fitbit a LOT, and it's changed some aspects of her daily routine.For the fitness side of things, one of the aspects of devices I would like to see reviewed is accuracy. I have two data points (not enough for a full conclusion, but definately enough for an opinion) on fitness trackers accuracy and I would like to see that expanded.
When you review things with pedometers, compare their recorded steps to actual steps. I tried to use an app on my smart phone, and it recorded 15 steps when I shook the phone a few times, and 8 steps while I took my dogs on a 2 mile walk. We've also put my wife’s FitBit on our dogs collar while playing fetch. That earned her 800 extra steps for the day in about 10 minutes.
The other options like calories burned and active minutes tracked seem very suspect to me on many devices. The amount of assumptions you have to make to get from something like hear rate to calories is pretty large, and I doubt this is very accurate.
kashyapvijay - Wednesday, January 21, 2015 - link
$125 Citizen Eco drive (no battery; runs forever) watch is much better value compared to $300 wearable, which only coverts my pocket watch (phone watch function) into a wrist watch. Wearable has to lot more (blood pressure measurement, blood glucose measurement, medicine injection, etc.) before it can justify claim on wrist, a very scarce real estate.GuardianAngel470 - Wednesday, January 21, 2015 - link
For those wondering whether anyone even wears watches anymore, I'm 6' 3" and virtually no chair I regularly come across is designed for my height or greater. Digging my phone out of a pocket that is at a < 90 degree angle to my torso is not even remotely convenient enough for me to forgo a watch, especially as phones grow in size.And for me, the question is really why would I bother getting used to that? Less than a second to check the time, date, and day on my wrist or 5, 10, even 30 seconds for a big phone in a sturdy case stuck obstinately in my pocket; the choice is a flat out no-brainer.
My watch is, for all my purposes, completely waterproof, won't blind me at night, is completely invisible in terms of comfort, is more durable than a Nokia 3310, and needs a new battery every year and a half. Not a single smart watch, cell phone, or otherwise offers all of those features, especially not for under $60.
So yeah, I still wear a watch. When a smart watch manages to be waterproof down to 100M, low brightness, incredibly comfortable, nigh indestructible, and doesn't need to be charged for a year, then we'll talk.
eldakka - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
What I don't want in a smartwatch:1 microphone
2 camera
3 speaker
With the ability to surreptiously turn on these functions that various criminal and governmental (same thing these days really) organisations have my sony smartwatch that doesnt havr any of these features is perfect.
When I have an important/confidential meeting (e.g. doctor, financial consultant, business meeting, stripper ahem) I can leave the phone on but outside the room, within bluetooth range, and hold my conversation without any privacy implications while also still being able to receive important notifications (incoming calls, sms).
I dont need to be able to make/receive calls on the watch itself, thats what the phone is for.
halcyon - Thursday, January 22, 2015 - link
It will be all about sensors, software ecosystem, looks and price.Samsung doesn't get it.
microsoft half gets it.
Apple gets it, but of course, is a closed ecosystem (it's a mere 16% of the mobile market, regardless of what people in the USA think). Also, Apple skips on the sensors.
Intel's owned Basis has the sensors, but it looks like cr*p and support is....well... it's not buried on the Intel graveyeard to languish like all their other purchases.
Fitbit is a passing phenomenon, somebody will pick them up for dollars or they will just wither away in the next 3 years.
Then there are the specialists.... Polar.... Suunto.... Garmin and others.
They could theoretically do something wild: great looks, cross-platform (good support!), plenty of sensors, great for sportspeople... But they are too un-innovative, too slow and have too meager resources.
In the end, Apple will rule their own segment. Some people will mistakenly think it's the whole universe.
Samsung will spam with a huge portfolio and some of them will float - eventually.
LG doesn't get it.
THen there's the Swiss entry. It will happen this year or the next year from the Swatch group. They have too much to lose.
They know fashion like no other. They know how to brand. They have good distribution. Mass production. Software and really understanding smart wearables is not their thing.
The market is just barely starting to be carved out -- it can't even be divided yet.
But it looks like almost all of the offerings are "meh" at best.
In five years, let's take another look :-)
Will Robinson - Friday, January 23, 2015 - link
Nice article but did the author really just use "inventory" as a verb in the first sentence?wtf?
yhselp - Friday, January 23, 2015 - link
Consult a dictionary. It can be used as a verb, and not just in American English. In this case, it's been used as "to summarize".g00ey - Saturday, January 24, 2015 - link
Pain in the ass? The headphones are supposed to be worn in the ears, not up the hiney :)cyberssd - Friday, January 30, 2015 - link
Screen size & aspect ratio are most important to me. Small square screens just don't cut it. Manufacturers need to think ultrawide 21:9.