Same. I had a huawei and it was like using the original iphone; had potential but needs constant kid gloves to operate and couldnt go far from the charge dock. Going through menus took almost seconds, even with different versions of Android wear.
When I'm getting ready for bed I remove my watch and pop it on the charging dock on my bedside. In the morning when I wake up I put it back on. Do you sleep with your watch or why is it such a pain to charge it at night like your phone?
It's not just the hassle of charging overnight but also the fire risk; charging Lithium batteries a metre from my head whilst I sleep is not an attractive idea.
Hence I charge phones and laptops during the day and only when someone is around to supervise.
Yeah, this is why I went with the Pebble over the others - it gets the realtime notifications and the fancy sleep tracker and pedometer - and due to eink, can keep its screen on without the need to be charged every night.
That's all I wanted it for, that's all it does. And most importantly - it's priced like that's all it does.
Pebbles haven't used e-ink since the first version.
But they seem to get equal or better battery life out of the Transflective LCDs currently used, which operate on a similar principle as e-ink, in the sense of how the light reaches your eyes:
Interesting, I seem to remember them calling it color epaper in some marketing material so I just assumed it was a similar product to eink. Cool though.
I think that android Casio smartwatch looks pretty cool... But I'm not paying more than $200 for a watch. When they can operate as a regular watch and a good notification device, I'll consider paying maybe $300. It's just a lot of money for a relatively useless object on your wrist.
I won my Apple watch in a contest. I wouldn't have bought it. I find the notifications on my wrist are really great. I don't take my phone out nearly as often as before.
I now pay for gas, small groceries and various other things with my watch. I unlock my computer by just pressing the spacebar instead of typing my password. The killer app for me is when I'm cycling or motorbiking and have directions appear on my wrist instead of my pocket.
Seems like they will stay a niche until they can replace phones entirely, and perhaps even past then. A lot of people just don't like having something strapped to their wrist and/or want a large screen.
As a watch guy (and most watch people are guys) the first smart watch I've been excited about is the upcoming gear S3:
Yeah that's me I'm waiting for them to come out with one that's a replacement for a phone not some unjustifiably expensive accessory for a phone.
That or just make phones smaller. My favorite flip phone is smaller than even the smallest iPhone. I'd probably still use it today if my network still supported 2g.
What does the "charging not required" claim mean for the hybrid watches? They claim a 6-month battery life. What do you do afterwards? Replace the battery?
Well the over all problem here is that today only Apple and Samsung even make money on Smartphones. Not Sony, not HTC, not Motorola, not not LG, not Xiaomi, not Huawei neither of those make money from selling phone hardware.
If they can't do that then first of all Why and more importantly what's driving innovation in hardware?
The gear S2 has a similar rotating bezel, though it's less obviously looking at it. The strap design on the S2 is awful- too easy to break. Good to see they are moving to normal watch bands. One thing that would keep me from buying a samsung again is if they stick with SVoice instead of letting you use Google voice search (especially with Google Assistant)
I.e. never? I mean, I can picture making phone calls or dictating SMS by voice with a smart watch, but people are not going to be browsing the web or taking pictures with a tiny wrist device when they already have a 5-6" inches display device on their pockets, and almost no one would ditch the latter for the former if they had to choose.
I think it's likely that smart watches will continue to be niche devices for the foreseeable future, at very least until someone figures out a killer feature that sets them apart from smartphones.
Unless people resort to another device like mounted glasses for web viewing and picture taking. Or a ipad for bookreading, web browsing and picture taking.
>I.e. never? I mean, I can picture making phone calls or dictating SMS by voice with a smart watch, but people are not going to be browsing the web or taking pictures with a tiny wrist device when they already have a 5-6" inches display device on their pockets, and almost no one would ditch the latter for the former if they had to choose.
People might also not have 5-6" devices in their pockets, but special glasses with HUDs or smart contact lenses...
Bulk. It makes sense to keep glasses as light and small as possible, whereas a watch can be relatively bulky without being socially unacceptable. So you could have just enough electronics for glasses to display information and record, then have the watch store or compute the resulting data.
It could basically split smartphone features into two gadgets that are easier to carry around. For that, though, we still need quite a few leaps in miniaturization.
>If we're assuming the existence of non-sucky smart glasses or contact lenses [1], why exactly would anyone use a smart watch?
For the same reasons we use smartwatches with our phones today. It's more plausible they'd fit a great cpu, cellular phone, gps, etc on a watch size, than they'd fit it in a decent glass frame.
So the watch could handle most things, plus there are interactions that can't be done with glasses (like measuring one's heart rate, or similar).
FWIW, I said the same thing about smartphones when they came out - who'd want to browse the web on a tiny 4" screen when you've got a 13" laptop? And indeed, I do very little web-browsing on my smartphone; it's generally just used to answer quick questions when I absolutely need information (or, well, when I want to win an argument over dinner :-P).
What made smartphones useful was people discovered new uses that you just couldn't use a computer for. You can't do turn-by-turn navigation with your laptop in the car. It's nearly useless if you're standing at a street corner in an unfamiliar city and want to know where the closest coffeeshop with wifi is. You can't use it to take a picture of the cute little ducks crossing the road and send it to your wife. It does you no good when you want to hail a car to take you home.
People haven't yet discovered similar uses for a smartwatch. It's highly likely that they exist, though. What the watch gives you is hands-free information: you can receive quick, 1-5 second notifications even if you're carrying something or immersed (sometimes literally) in physical activity. I've already found this useful for getting notifications that my founders' group has changed where we're meeting while I'm driving there, or that my wife has already gone to the grocery store, or for checking off items on my shopping list while carrying shopping bags. There are probably other bigger uses waiting to be discovered.
> What the watch gives you is hands-free information
But your phone can also give you that, through earphones or headsets. Smartwatches must find new uses that a phone cannot also do as well, which is a much harder bar to clear.
For example:
> notifications [...] while I'm driving there
Phones can do that already, and will do more and more as CarPlay etc become mainstream.
> checking off items on my shopping list while carrying shopping bags
Siri can probably do that already (I use Trello for my shopping lists and it works fine as it is, tbh).
The one use where smartwatches will likely be unbeatable, forever and ever, is fitness/health: carrying around a phone in those circumstances is simply more annoying than carrying a watch. Once they get cheap enough, they might replace smartcards and badges for access control. If smartglasses become mainstream, they could augment each other (your glasses display and record, your watch stores and computes) and actually replace phones altogether; but alone, I don't see them going anywhere.
Bluetooth earbuds & headsets have all the downsides of smartwatches: they cost roughly the same (for headsets; earbuds are a lot cheaper), they make you look as dorky or more, they're IMHO less comfortable, and they're another accessory that can fall out and get lost. And they seem to have similar adoption numbers. The main difference is audio vs. visual: headsets are better for some uses (notably taking calls) but worse for others (interacting or reading quick notifications).
I own the Gear S2. I've also owned the Apple Watch (S0) and the Moto 360 2nd gen. The interface on the S2 with the rotating bezel works really well. It is the only time I really felt like my smartwatch was an actual watch and not just a "device" strapped to my wrist. The cellular functionality was also handy in a pinch, as it offered some communication utility if I left my phone at home.
That being said, I don't think I'll get the Gear S3. The biggest problem is that while the S2 works great for displaying notifications, the lack of phone apps makes it difficult to take any action on most of them without switching to your phone. On top of that, I found it extremely difficult to get text into the watch to do things like respond to texts with anything other than a pre-selected message template. The T-9 keyboard was awkward and S Voice didn't work well at all (in part, I'm sure, to the quality of the microphone embedded in the watch).
I don't think smartwatches will be much more than notification mirrors until the ability to quickly input text gets better, probably through improved voice dictation.
One other thing about the S3: I really don't understand their choice to offer cellular connectivity only one the Frontier model. That feature is one of the main things that would attract me to the device, but I don't like the styling on the frontier.
I use mine for taking notes. sometimes it's really useful, say when I'm driving or just walking down the street. I'd like to see improvement in voice rec though, as sometimes it goes badly
I am another watch guy, but I disagree that the main problem is that people don't like wearing them (although there certainly is no shortage of such people). Last year there were 1.2 BILLION watches sold (http://www.statisticbrain.com/wrist-watch-industry-statistic...). On whole smart watches sold as well as Swiss did even though they are on average significantly cheaper.
I don't know why they are not selling, but clearly combination of their advantages and disadvantages is not compelling enough compared to alternatives.
Anyone else remember graffiti input on PalmOS[1]? It strikes me that even a low resolution digitiser (32x32, maybe less?) would still resolve those characters. That gets you SMS entry and contact search, maybe?
Always-on... screen? Pebbles have that. They don't have GPS built-in though so you'll have to bring your phone with you. You can control the running apps through the watch interface at least.
Note that there are 3rd party solutions for the Pebble (straps that use their extension/accessory pins to add GPS and a bit more juice) and that Pebble plans to release the Pebble Core in January - a tiny wearable Android device with GPS included.
So you should be able to go out with your Pebble + SomethingElse and leave the phone at home, if we're talking GPS or tracking.
Disclaimer: I own a Pebble Time, I backed the Pebble Time 2 and the Pebble Core.
I feel like the newer Garmins are a good middle-ground for smartwatches. Always-on, 1+ week battery life, phone/email/calender notifications. And you get GPS built-in with a step tracker. I'd recommend the forerunner 230 which has a 5 week battery life: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/running/forerunn...
I suspect people /want/ a smart watch so they can feel like Dick Tracy and Roger Smith (Anime, Big O).
The reality is that the smart watch is little more than a smaller screen attached by wireless personal area network to the real computer; which has a better (bigger, brighter, larger buttons) and more responsive screen.
I stopped wearing a normal watch once I had a decent pocket chronometer (a comparatively primitive simple pocket flip phone).
I think that's the marketing problem here; it isn't clear to the average consumer what the use case, if any, actually is.
> I stopped wearing a normal watch once I had a decent pocket chronometer
I continue to wear one because it is easier to check the time that way than dig the thing out of my pocket, turn it on, get it to recognize my thumb or demand a pin, etc., especially when driving.
It works great as a case for my laptop. It's fun being unhip :-)
Edit: I've used modern soft laptop bags, but they tend to develop tears and small holes through which things fall out unnoticed. Urgh. The Samsonite doesn't have that failure mode.
Stuff from that era that still exists might as well be indestructible. A little bit of survivorship bias, but it's hard to find anything that well made at any price now.
Mainly because you feel like an utter prat walking down the street talking to your wrist. Had an original G Watch and truly felt like the biggest ck saying "Ok Google, remind me to do XYZ".
It had 3 uses: 1) seeing who's ringing and dismissing calls in meetings where you left the ringtone on 2) being able to read full message threads through the notifications without having to "read" them in the apps (sneaky for Messenger and Hangouts) 3) pretending you're not a tourist by getting navigation directions on the wrist rather than being obvious and looking at your phone.
Suffice to say, I now wear a nice normal watch that I love dearly.
yeah what possessed them to make people say "ok Google". I might as well say, "I'm an idiot". Was it not possible to make it start listening for commands when you activate it/turn wrist etc.
I have a Pebble and the main use case is that my phone never rings or makes any noise at all. Anytime I get an email, text, or phone call I'm notified on my wrist. It's a huge improvement and I feel somewhat naked without it.
Smartwatches will always be a secondary display and should be marketed as such.
Man, I didn't expect Pebble to be down so much. My wife and I have 5 of them between us. The always-on screen and a week of battery life make them much more attractive than most other smartwatches.
It's true! We got one each when they first came out on Kickstarter, then I bought a Steel because it looked nicer, then we both got Times when they came out, then I got her a Round because she liked the look. counts Oh wait, that's 6. And the last one was in December... so actually, we're part of the reason for the YoY decline!
I'm with you, been wearing the Steel daily since it came out. Lovely product. Firmware upgrade was actually welcome; I'll keep it, I love that you can roll back easily by installing a different app version. Dismal market share! :( -- though, people have complimented it frequently, most don't know it's a smart watch which I consider a feature.
Looks like they should turn to some niche marketing strategies if they're not already because people who like Pebbles REALLY like Pebbles I find, though they are rare to begin with.
Ditto—I love mine and am anxiously awaiting delivery of my next one. For me, it doesn't have to replace a smartphone, it just has to make it much easier for me to see and categorize the influx of information. It answers the question of (1) did I just feel my phone buzz? and (2) if so, do I need to read/respond right now.
Since I previously wore watches, I find it natural to wear. And because I never had luxury watches (Seiko was my ceiling), I don't mind that smartwatches aren't fancier-looking. I understand that watch-nevers and timepiece aficionados may feel differently...
The Pebble 2 Kickstarter was early in the summer and didn't start shipping until October. Since the graph mentions shipped units, I'm not surprised they're down. Anyone who was interested in getting a Pebble either pledged to the Kickstarter or waited for the 2 to come out in stores.
Annoyingly, the folks who waited for the store version will be getting theirs before the Kickstarter backers do. The community took a big hit when they prioritized WalMart over the folks who helped them get off the ground. Pebble's community has always been a strong point for the company - not sure if that'll keep being true, so their blip might turn into a bigger slide.
Disclaimer: Backer of Pebble 2 who won't be getting his watch until at least mid-November.
I like my 2nd gen Moto 360 as a watch, for its aesthetics, and as a simple notifier, but almost everything else on it is beyond broken. Just trying to check the weather takes 20+ seconds and fails half the time, even on wifi. Pull out the phone and the weather is already there, updated. What the hell. Ok Google could be useful, except for the situations you'd want to use it (hands full, crowded environment) are exactly the situations where it fails.
USAA has a great watch app, though, which somehow has many fewer reliability/latency problems than every other app. I can do most of my banking just walking down the hall while my phone is locked up at my desk.
I don't get it. Decades of science fiction depicting Heads-up-Display glasses and wrist-strapped laptops, with people wishing and wishing we lived in such a world.
Now here we are and society isn't going in for it. Bluetooth head sets, smartwatches, Google Glass, none of it is sticking. Even though smart phones are becoming cumbersome due to size and inability to use hands-free or even one-handed well.
Could it be that smartwatches and google glass don't have suitable input methods yet? They're adequate for displaying information but not great for extensive input or manipulation of data. Most people also don't want yet another device to recharge each night either.
I have a Nexus 6 (one of the larger phones) and don't find it cumbersome at all. It's certainly more practical compared to trying to do anything meaningful on a smartwatch.
My Nexus 4 was (at the time, 2013) huge to me because I had just switched from a tiny little qwerty flip phone. Getting used to it took forever, but my number one problem was making it fit on me without being bulky or getting scratched up/damaged.
Mind you I had a blue collar job at the time so there was a lot of opportunity for phone destruction.
I think there is more to your comment than initially meets the eye. I've been watching "Black Mirror" the past few days, and the one thing that all episodes share in common when it comes to their futuristic UX is the tremendous expressiveness that they derive from unbelievably simple and quick input methods, where you can clearly see that the user communicated far more intent than even the number of DOF that their supposed input device even allowed. The only thing I can think of as helping to bridge that gap is AI
The limitations of power have put a choke-hold on the future you and I read about in science fiction. After the power issue is solved the next problem will be heat I think.
Solve the power problem and we'll see a huge jump in technology. Right now they are trying to solve it by making more and more efficient processors that use less power and perform better over the same amount of time.
We didn't get to see a steampunk future starting with the early 1900s even though books like Jules Verne's were quite popular at the time (and quite some time after that), so I don't think we're going to see a cyberpunk future anytime soon, if ever. The best that we can do is to re-watch shows like "Akira" and think about what could have been.
I think it's because we haven't thought of enough interesting things to do with them. Sci-fi HUD displays are mostly cool because of the applications, not just their existence. If you only use something a couple times a day, it needs to be absolutely seamless or you're going to take it off and forget about it.
Bluetooth headsets made you look like you were talking to yourself, breaking essentially all social norms. There's a reason they (and those who used them regardless) were widely mocked.
Google Glass was obscenely expensive, invitation-only -- circumstances around its availability made it clear it's a tech demo for technology 'futurists', and not a product within reach (or intended for) the general public. Naive defaults about it recording everything caused a privacy storm; behavior on part of its users led to widespread derision.
Smartwatches in their current form are solutions looking for a problem. It's obscene that notifications and fitness are the only two use-cases most makers were able to identify.
All these devices are plagued by voice control: speaking to your device in public is neither very considerate to those around you, nor privacy-preserving. The fact is, even if speech recognition systems are working well, most people are uneasy issuing content-rich commands, like entire bodies of emails, in public earshot. Until someone solves this shortcoming reliably, none of these devices will see widespread public appeal.
Don't forget corporate mercenaries, militarized police forces, private space exploration, and virtual reality! All we need now is brain augmentation and cybernetic limbs and we'll be living in neuromancer.
I wouldn't really equate Google Glass with Heads up Display glasses as most people imagine them. I'm not sure if you've used it, but it sounded super cool until I tried it. You don't see the image on Glass on the lenses themselves but on a little transparent rock that's attached to the glasses.. it was a pretty underwhelming experience to me
Seems interest in smart watches happens at Christmas time. There is a problem with that because you don't buy people the same present every year and there cannot be that many people wanting a new smart watch at Christmas, particularly if it is marginally better than their existing smart watch.
I think the same people that bought 3D televisions and tablets bought smart watches, they will be wanting something else next. Maybe they will return to buying smart watches when there is some new battery-defying functionality to them, i.e. they are as good as smart phones in miniature with lots of previously unimagined 'Pokemon Go' grade apps that make the upgrade worth it.
I also do not believe that any of the smart watches cut the mustard as far as true watch aficionados are concerned. To some people the fanciest ceramic iWatch is on an equal par with a resin calculator watch, lacking intangible heritage things and therefore not a cool item in their minds (they probably fear not being able to use a smart watch). These same people were equally snobbish about digital photography, therefore it could take a generation before smart watches are accepted 'artistically' by people who are like that.
I am hoping that a category killing smart watch gets made by Google in the same price range as a Chromecast. For £30 a lot of people would give a smart watch a go.
I've always been skeptical of smart watches. As others say, if it can't outright replace my phone, i just don't see much value in them.
I wear "nice" watches occasionally, usually any time i have to wear a suit. As a toy, an epaper watch with actual physical hands would be pretty cool. The two extra hands on something like a diving watch could be used for other gauges, maybe unread email count or something goofy like that.
A watch seems like the right target for that semi connected on call state. Sort of like a modern pager. I'm not reading email, or available on hangouts. But i'll get the alert that we need to communicate. Low key, non intrusive, acceptable at a funeral. Just a few bits of information.
I like the idea of having a reliable health monitor inside a watch (pedometer, heart rate, oxygen levels, etc.) Especially if they can combine that with data analytics and find some early symptoms of serious issues or help me optimize my day. Combined with existing smartwatch functionality I'd get that. But right now the devices I've seen are too limited/imprecise or too expensive.
I liked my Android Wear watch, but it never completely worked. Things like dismissing a reminder on the watch would get a sad cloud rather than also dismiss it on my phone. I thought maybe it was because I was running cyanogenmod, so I went back to stock Verizon firmware, but it had all the same bugs. A few weeks later, the Android Wear app started crashing in the background 2-3 times per minute and giving me a popup each time. I disabled it and haven't really used the watch since.
I honestly thought that was one possible outcome of Project Ara if Google decided that the phone's component inventory didn't literally need to be connected to the base station. It would have made sense to extend Ara communication to BLE, Zigbee or some other low power wireless rather than wired interface. But that dream died with the Ara project itself. Oh well.
If I ever do get a smartwatch, it would be because it's a sensor. I think the health/medical/biohacking potential there is huge. The only thing is - must it really be on my wrist, and do I really need to look at it or touch/push buttons on it?
Probably because there hasn't been an updated android wear watch in ages besides the fossil, which I bought after my moto 360 died. Google is dragging their feet.
Haven't they figured out yet that telling the time is the thing that smart watches do the worst.
instead, i want a band. I'm still waiting for an Android Wear band. i want something a bit like the Microsoft band 2 [1], but slimmer and a smaller screen. something as a notification device and to take voice notes. but i don't need it to replace my watch because it's not "on" when i look at it.
For telling the time, I'll either wear a "proper" watch (as well) or none at all.
[1] I'm on my 3rd ms band. they randomly die (stop charging). ms are good about it and replace it quickly... but soon my warranty will be up and it's all over.
As the comments in that article pointed out - the hassle far outweighs the value. After not wearing a watch for over 20 years, I've had an Apple Watch for about 3 months now (it was a free gift), and honestly, as much as the device is useful, it is a pain - especially when it comes to battery life.
The charge seems to last just enough to fall flat at the most inconvenient times, i.e. when I am just about to leave the house all day, or right when I am about to go to bed (I use the watch primarily for sleep tracking).
Most of the apps on the watch kind of require you to wear it consistently all of the time to give you meaningful data, however current battery life means you end up with large gaps in your human telemetry that your data is always missing vital chunks.
Someone gave me a golf cart last year. Actually they gave me a Ferrari 458 Spider. But I wanted a golf cart, so I'm using it as golf cart. Its hassle far outweighs its value. It destroys the fairway with its huge torque. And its rear wheel drive makes it really hard to control on grass. And it uses a lot of gas, so it runs out at the most inconvenient times. My friend doesn't understand, saying he drives his around town, on tarmac, and passes gas stations all the time, but he fails to realize that there aren't any gas stations on the golf course.
Your friend gave you a $300+ Apple Watch, not a $50 sleep tracker. Charge it at night and if you really do want a sleep tracker then buy a sleep tracker.
Not sure about you, but I would have the skills to actually use a Ferrari 458 Spider as a golf cart without tearing up the fairways or using too much fuel. It would be cool.
Strange analogies aside - the point of my post is that the Apple Watch uses too much of my time and energy to 'baby' it and make sure it is operationally ready. Yes, I love unlocking my Mac with it, getting the time and reading notifications on it, so big bonus there. I did used to have Fitbit device for a long while there and enjoyed the fact that I only had to plan and think about charging it every 2 or 3 weeks, rather than every 1.3 days.
Even if it was an even 24 hours recharge cycle for the Watch, it would be a darn sight more convenient, as I could get into routine of charging it at a set time every day, but the fact that it (a) runs out of charge at different times of the day and (b) takes a long time to fully charge up means that it just takes up too much of my conscious thought to manage it, and I would far rather spend that time and energy elsewhere on things I consider more important. Heck, I have enough trouble keeping my cats fed and happy - I don't need something else constantly bullying me as well.
Similar with your Ferrari analogy above. Rules permitting, it would make an awesome golf cart and I would do so without hesitation. My main problem would be 'babying' it again and worrying about other golfers denting it with errant shots or thrown clubs (you'd have to play golf with me one day to see how prevalent that is among the guys I play with!) :)
First world problems, I know, but I think it is a big factor as to why most of the first world seems to shun the smart watches.
You might just have a broken one then? I charge mine a set time every night, put it on in the morning, and 18 hours later when I'm hitting the hay, it still has 40% charge.
Can someone make a super-low energy, classic looking watch with GPS? For people with Alzheimer's / Dementia. Could make a kids version too.
They have GPS watches, but the battery seems to last maybe a day or two. My dad isn't going to remember to do that, so I would need to do so on a less frequent basis.
Maybe with some self-charging based on user movement (they used to make self-winding watches)? Keep GPS off until receive (authenticated) SMS message asking it to turn on, then report back position? Or maybe just triangulate position based on cell towers every 15 min...
The biggest issue for me with the "smartwatch" is that they don't have feature parody with dumb watches. I've had many watches in the past and the battery lasts for years. I can also turn my wrist and see the time instantly. Who would have thought?
What I get now is some piece of crap that needs to be charged every night. So I basically have no features while I'm sleeping. I can't just wake up in the middle of the night an instantly know what the time is.
As a battery saving measure, the time isn't displayed until I turn my wrist and wait some obscene amount of time (around a second?). It also goes from being dark to being lit... so much for being discrete.
I wish they would stop calling these things "watches" just because they go on your wrist. I expect anything called a watch to have the features of a watch and be on my wrist pretty much all of the time. Call it a fitness tracker if it's not meant to be worn 24/7.
Let me know when battery life is within a couple of orders of magnitude of real watches, then maybe I'll revisit.
For the non-native English speakers, or for the native but non-US speakers, this was a very interesting misspelling. A lot of native US speakers pronounce the two words absolutelly in the same way. The British pronounciation is a bit different, as I suspect to be the case in many other English speaking countries. Even in the US not everyone pronounces the 't' in "parity" the same as the 'd' in "parody", I would estimate it's about fifty-fifdy.
For these reasons, for me, Pebble was the only smartwatch that appealed to me, hardware-wise, but it's worth noting that the ToS on their Pebble software is ridiculously anti-privacy. There's an alternative app on Android that is privacy-conscious (gadget bridge), but it's still a work in progress (and they have to reverse engineer everything on the device).
I'm still happy enough with being able to more or less customize my watchface, but if you both care about your privacy and want to make serious use of the "smart" smartwatch features, I don't think there's currently anything on the market for you.
> What I get now is some piece of crap that needs to be charged every night. So I basically have no features while I'm sleeping. I can't just wake up in the middle of the night an instantly know what the time is.
I sleep with my Apple Watch on every night. I use it in tandem with my phone as an alarm clock. (That's actually incredibly useful. I haven't slept through an alarm a single time since I started doing this.)
It needs to be charged once per 24 hour period, but it doesn't have to be charged at night. I pop mine on the charger in the morning when I get ready for the day (shower, etc.) and at night when I get ready for bed. That's all it takes for me to keep it charged. It's never died on me in a year. In fact, it's never even entered power saving mode, which will retain the features of a "dumb" watch (telling the time) which you stated you desired at night.
Smart features? Plural? Not really. It's a basic watch with one extra red hand that can track your steps for the day; that's it. Very nice watch, however; I love Mondaine's design. But let's not pretend this is at all comparable to Apple Watch.
The question is does this opinion comes from experience, or from assumption?
Having an Apple Watch now for about 6 months, I can say I love it, and none of those things (and I shared the same skepticism before buying one) have proven to be issues.
I don't tend to look at my watch when I sleep - so that one's easy, and when you charge the watch its in a mode that gives off a low-light time (nightstand mode, i think they call it). On top of that, it takes about an hour to charge, so often I end up charging it during my night time regiment, and by the time I go to bed, i COULD wear it (if i need to make sure I'm up early for something, i wear it so i get the vibration)
If you want a traditional watch, then get a traditional watch - comparing it to a traditional watch and holding to the same standards is not a position of common sense...
I didn't think I would like charging a watch every day, but I have the watch charger next to my phone charger, and I charge my phone every night, so... it works for me.
Everyone I've known who has had a smartwatch has basically liked it (including people who have Android Wear smartwatches).
Only one person I've known who's had a smartwatch has told me that they were worth the money. In general, the consensus has been "Given that I have it, I like it. But it's not a big enough deal to be worth several hundred dollars."
> If you want a traditional watch, then get a traditional watch - comparing it to a traditional watch and holding to the same standards is not a position of common sense...
I don't think this is accurate. Someone brought up a comparison of smartphone to a Nokia phone, but this is not the same kind of comparison. A smartphone greatly simplified user interface and made accessing the internet and sharing much easier, and also created new ways of interacting (swiping etc). Whereas, the watch seems to be very featureful sure, but the internet is already accessible using your phone. And the added worry of carrying yet another charger when traveling (and the horror of losing it...). Now, a traditional watch, you don't worry about it for YEARS, not a week. Its mostly another ornament, like a cap or a shirt.
It may be a difference in temperament. But personally, I like to reduce things in my life which require any form of attention: because I forget things very easily (or am just too lazy to do them).
Also, this may not apply to everyone, but there is simply too many beautifully crafted wristwatches out there for me to ever seriously consider a smartwatch.
"It may be a difference in temperament. But personally, I like to reduce things in my life which require any form of attention: because I forget things very easily (or am just too lazy to do them)."
That was exactly my primary concern. In practice though, you (well, I, and most people) charge my phone at night. I set it next to the bed and plug it in... now my watch charger is right next to my phone charger, so its a no-brainer (and the wristband is fast on/off - thats important to me). Turns out because of the phone, i had no new habit to get into :)
>The biggest issue for me with the "smartwatch" is that they don't have feature parody with dumb watches. I've had many watches in the past and the battery lasts for years. I can also turn my wrist and see the time instantly. Who would have thought?
The same happens with e.g. paper vs computer. With paper the "battery" lasts forever. But you tradeoff some things to get other stuff.
>What I get now is some piece of crap that needs to be charged every night. So I basically have no features while I'm sleeping. I can't just wake up in the middle of the night an instantly know what the time is.
Well, you probably have your phone next to you, your alarm clock next to the bed, and several other clocks nearby in the bedroom.
>So I should supplement my smart watch with other devices in order to know what time it is? Makes $ense.
In order to know what time it is:
(1) at bed at night &&
(2) if you haven't kept it charged &&
(3) if you don't charge it by the bedstand
One could see oneself suffering this huge inconvenience when sleeping if they value the other things their smartwatch does when it's charged and their are not at bed at night...
Besides, no reason to buy a smartwatch for its timekeeping, you could just as well buy a $10 Casio watch and be done with it. Or one of those alarm-clock/radio bedstand thingies.
Yeah, I do. I don't set an alarm, I just get up when I wake up. Sometimes I wake up at 4:00 instead of 7:00, the watch tells me to go back to sleep. No way would I use a phone for that - I set it on silent in case a group chat blows up in the middle of the night, but if I saw the notifications I'd have to check them. At 4am. Ugh.
No(t only). People wear traditional watches to bed because they have waterproof
watches and couldn't be bothered with taking them off, and don't set their
strap/bracelet too tight.
That's why I love e-ink. I've charged my Kindle about four times this year, if you don't count the couple minutes here and there when I plug in to move new books on. Although you probably ought to, since that's usually enough to top the battery off.
"real" watches, i.e. an automatic, never need charging. even if you let it sit for days until the spring unwinds, you just put it on, shake your wrist, and it starts ticking again.
my casio digitals are solar. life is too short to replace or charge watch batteries. i mean, this problem was solved nearly a century ago.
the cheapest automatics are made by seiko and are barely $50. solars are cheaper.
i'll never buy a smartwatch until they're one or the other. watches should not have batteries or any other design feature that renders them useless on purpose.
I agree with you. I have a mechanical Rolex watch with an automatic winder. I can keep it on my wrist 24/7, even at night. It glows in the dark. I can instantly see the time when I look at the watch. There is no smartwatch in the world that matches these features. And it does all this without me ever having to "charge" it. Yes, I do have to adjust the time once a week because it runs about 1 second fast per day. But that takes me about 5 seconds/week to adjust.
No Smartwatch for me, I think my mechanical watch is much smarter.
Most of the smart- era is a regression in street UI. All old devices were static, touch driven, instantaneous, no brainers. No I have to look, swipe, wait, dig, to do anything. Nails.
It has to solve SOME problem that some subset of people care about so intensely that you don't mind the many ways in which it is not as mature as the incumbent.
It's clear that the current smart watches do not accomplish this for you. That's ok as long as there is an initial target audience for which they do. Whether that is the case right now.. well, we'll see.
I think it's pretty clear that there is some group that is getting value out of smartwatches. The 1st-gen Apple Watch sold 10-20M units, which is more than all Apple 2 PCs combined. And many of those users are quite satisfied (I am).
The tricky part is that they face a crossing-the-chasm problem now. The initial group of users is happy - but does that generalize to all users? Is it worth continuing to invest money into what's currently a niche market? Tivos, Blackberries, WebTV, 1st-gen PCs all found success in an early adopter market that was roughly as large as the smartwatch market is now, but it took a major re-envisioning of the concept before they became a mainstream product that all customers wanted.
I use a pebble. It has a battery life of about a week, but if I forget to charge it for a day after it tells me it needs charging it still works fine, and it charges pretty fast even if I charge it during the day. It displays the time 24/7 and all I have to do is jiggle my wrist to light up the backlight if it's dark outside. It shows me notifications from my phone which makes it easy to keep track of what's going on and which notifications I actually need to take action on or reply to. When I go bike riding and use Strava it switches over to show me the time, distance, etc. for my ride, which is super convenient. Overall it ends up being very useful for me.
Conversely, I have stopped wearing other watches because I believe my rather rudimentary smartwatch has made them obsolete.
The device in question is a Fitbit fitness tracker. The killer feature regarding the battery is the ratio of life to charging time, viz that I can wear it all day and all night (gaining sleep tracking and, best of all, a silent vibrating alarm) and keep the battery topped up in the duration of a daily shower. Not 24/7, but 23.6/7 easily.
> I can also turn my wrist and see the time instantly.
My Moto360 turns on instantly when I flip the wrist.
> I can't just wake up in the middle of the night an instantly know what the time is.
The Moto360 charging on its cradle shows the time pretty much like an ordinary stationary clock. It glows softly in the dark and shows you the time. It's a lot more visible that way compared to an old wristwatch.
> Let me know when battery life is within a couple of orders of magnitude of real watches
That is a legitimate complaint.
However, showing time is much less important nowadays, I think. Pretty much anything that uses electricity can show you the time. In my kitchen, there's something like 3 time displays visible at once. My wife's car has two (one is the old car clock, the other is from the new radio I've installed a while ago).
The reason why I wear a smartwatch is to avoid having to pull out the phone every time I get a notification. That, IMO, is the killer app of the smartwatch. I get the notification sound, just flip the wrist; decide whether it needs attention, and act accordingly or ignore. Done. Super-useful.
I agree that as timepieces alone the smartwatches are a regression.
They should include a small digital watch under the glass UNATTACHED to the OS, so it has the features of a watch, and additional features while powered
> Let me know when battery life is within a couple of orders of magnitude of real watches, then maybe I'll revisit.
Check out Vector Watch. It's more like a traditional watch that is also smart (it tells you when you got a phone call, an email, a meeting etc), the battery lasts for more than 30 days and it's always on.
I love mechanical watches too and have been looking for something that combines some smartwatch functionality with a good mechanical watch; have you seen Chronos?
that's actually very intriguing! The only thing that worries me is, I'd be concerned about tapping my mechanical watch dozens of times a day. Tapping can exert surprising amount of force to tiny movement pieces.
As timekeeping devices, the Casio G-Shock devices with solar charging and WWWV setting are hard to beat. Rugged, waterproof, etc. Prices start around $55. All they do is tell time, without requiring any attention or maintenance.
I feel the same way. My watch is a solar powered waterproof (200m) chunk of titanium and sapphire with a radio inside that sets itself every night. It is practically indestructible. It will run the rest of my life. I will never have to set it. I will never have to remove from my wrist (barring an MRI or some other fringe context).
It's also beautiful. It's the only thing I wear, other than my wedding ring, that could be considered jewelry. I'm going to give it to my son some day. And at that moment, perhaps 40-60 years from now, it will still be a functional work of art.
I look at smart watches vs. dumb watches and just think it's a bunch of total nonsense. Eventually, yes, they will likely get their, but it's going to 50-something years from now when it's cheaper to put a super computer in something than it is to leave it out.
I'm wondering why no one discusses that Q3 was the Quarter right before new Apple Watch introduction, and Apple owns a majority share in the market? Of course people were waiting to buy a new device. Q4/Q1 will be more relevant.
Someone mentioned it in the comments on TC. The decline may have been due to the Apple Watch v2's imminent announcement. I think people are willing to try it but not if there is "most definitely" a newer and improved version coming out soon for the same price.
2017 may well be the year for watches. This topic is pointless now given it's end of Oct and BF and Christmas is coming up soon. Let's revisit this topic mid 2017.
Why do I need a smartwatch, when I have a perfectly acceptable smartphone that does about 10x10 things more than the smartwatch will ever be able to do?
If I just needed to know the time, I'd buy a watch. If I need to know the time and make a call, I'd buy a smartphone.
Which I did.
Welcome to the future. We don't really solve problems - we just invent new ones and call the old problems solved.
Hell, I don't even remember what problem smartwatches were supposed to solve!
I predict Apple is very happy with the smartwatch market being down, much like Microsoft loved it (back in '99) when internet stocks were down. They are an iPhone company, and probably prefer (as a company) to defer threats to that incumbency.
I own an Apple Watch, and a Pebble before it, but honestly until more devices are addressable by such devices, it's usability is limited.
I think it may also have something to do with the relative popularity of Alexa and pervasive voice input in general - though I shy away from those due to privacy concerns. I mean, why wear a watch and tap for Siri when you can just call out for Alexa (and now Google) to ask about weather?
I bought one of the first generation Android Wear devices for $50 a few months after they debut. There was some convenience to the simple verbal commands for timers and the instant answers made for a neat party trick, but the speech-to-text wasn't good enough for moderately complex messaging (I once said I would be there in "a bit over 15 minutes" and got the fraction bit/15 minutes) and it was heavy and uncomfortable. I've also become less and less comfortable with being so intimate with Google.
I do see value added in the notification mirroring, however. There are many situations where it's useful to see updates without taking out and unlocking your phone: at a meeting, with your hands full, walking around in a crowd. I hadn't worn my watch for the better chunk of a year until two weeks ago when I needed instant Twitter notifications during business hours should a convention I attend start selling its badges. Now that I have those badges, it's back into the drawer until needed again. My calculator watch is more comfortable and I have metal watches that look nicer. Unless I have a defined need for notifications on my wrist, I currently am better off with a conventional watch.
180 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 201 ms ] threadHence I charge phones and laptops during the day and only when someone is around to supervise.
That's all I wanted it for, that's all it does. And most importantly - it's priced like that's all it does.
But they seem to get equal or better battery life out of the Transflective LCDs currently used, which operate on a similar principle as e-ink, in the sense of how the light reaches your eyes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transflective_liquid-crystal_d...
I now pay for gas, small groceries and various other things with my watch. I unlock my computer by just pressing the spacebar instead of typing my password. The killer app for me is when I'm cycling or motorbiking and have directions appear on my wrist instead of my pocket.
As a watch guy (and most watch people are guys) the first smart watch I've been excited about is the upcoming gear S3:
http://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/gear-s3/
Because it looks like a real watch and has the rotating bezel for input, but I recognize I'm a tiny market.
I hope it doesn't set my wrist on fire.
That or just make phones smaller. My favorite flip phone is smaller than even the smallest iPhone. I'd probably still use it today if my network still supported 2g.
I love that bezel input idea! I hadn't seen the Gear S3
I think that means it will sit on a shelf unworn for 6 months
The problem is a watch can only be so big before it's too big, but input and battery life on small devices sucks (for now)
If they can't do that then first of all Why and more importantly what's driving innovation in hardware?
I.e. never? I mean, I can picture making phone calls or dictating SMS by voice with a smart watch, but people are not going to be browsing the web or taking pictures with a tiny wrist device when they already have a 5-6" inches display device on their pockets, and almost no one would ditch the latter for the former if they had to choose.
I think it's likely that smart watches will continue to be niche devices for the foreseeable future, at very least until someone figures out a killer feature that sets them apart from smartphones.
People might also not have 5-6" devices in their pockets, but special glasses with HUDs or smart contact lenses...
[1] Smart contact lenses are such a crock. Seriously, guys, how do you think you're going to power these things?
It could basically split smartphone features into two gadgets that are easier to carry around. For that, though, we still need quite a few leaps in miniaturization.
For the same reasons we use smartwatches with our phones today. It's more plausible they'd fit a great cpu, cellular phone, gps, etc on a watch size, than they'd fit it in a decent glass frame.
So the watch could handle most things, plus there are interactions that can't be done with glasses (like measuring one's heart rate, or similar).
What made smartphones useful was people discovered new uses that you just couldn't use a computer for. You can't do turn-by-turn navigation with your laptop in the car. It's nearly useless if you're standing at a street corner in an unfamiliar city and want to know where the closest coffeeshop with wifi is. You can't use it to take a picture of the cute little ducks crossing the road and send it to your wife. It does you no good when you want to hail a car to take you home.
People haven't yet discovered similar uses for a smartwatch. It's highly likely that they exist, though. What the watch gives you is hands-free information: you can receive quick, 1-5 second notifications even if you're carrying something or immersed (sometimes literally) in physical activity. I've already found this useful for getting notifications that my founders' group has changed where we're meeting while I'm driving there, or that my wife has already gone to the grocery store, or for checking off items on my shopping list while carrying shopping bags. There are probably other bigger uses waiting to be discovered.
But your phone can also give you that, through earphones or headsets. Smartwatches must find new uses that a phone cannot also do as well, which is a much harder bar to clear.
For example:
> notifications [...] while I'm driving there
Phones can do that already, and will do more and more as CarPlay etc become mainstream.
> checking off items on my shopping list while carrying shopping bags
Siri can probably do that already (I use Trello for my shopping lists and it works fine as it is, tbh).
The one use where smartwatches will likely be unbeatable, forever and ever, is fitness/health: carrying around a phone in those circumstances is simply more annoying than carrying a watch. Once they get cheap enough, they might replace smartcards and badges for access control. If smartglasses become mainstream, they could augment each other (your glasses display and record, your watch stores and computes) and actually replace phones altogether; but alone, I don't see them going anywhere.
That being said, I don't think I'll get the Gear S3. The biggest problem is that while the S2 works great for displaying notifications, the lack of phone apps makes it difficult to take any action on most of them without switching to your phone. On top of that, I found it extremely difficult to get text into the watch to do things like respond to texts with anything other than a pre-selected message template. The T-9 keyboard was awkward and S Voice didn't work well at all (in part, I'm sure, to the quality of the microphone embedded in the watch).
I don't think smartwatches will be much more than notification mirrors until the ability to quickly input text gets better, probably through improved voice dictation.
One other thing about the S3: I really don't understand their choice to offer cellular connectivity only one the Frontier model. That feature is one of the main things that would attract me to the device, but I don't like the styling on the frontier.
I don't know why they are not selling, but clearly combination of their advantages and disadvantages is not compelling enough compared to alternatives.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti_(Palm_OS)
So you should be able to go out with your Pebble + SomethingElse and leave the phone at home, if we're talking GPS or tracking.
Disclaimer: I own a Pebble Time, I backed the Pebble Time 2 and the Pebble Core.
- Pebble 2: 7 days
- Pebble Time 2: 10 days
- Pebble Time: 5 days
In practice, the Pebble Time is good for about 4 days. I suspect that the other estimates are about a day above what most people will see as well.
The reality is that the smart watch is little more than a smaller screen attached by wireless personal area network to the real computer; which has a better (bigger, brighter, larger buttons) and more responsive screen.
I stopped wearing a normal watch once I had a decent pocket chronometer (a comparatively primitive simple pocket flip phone).
I think that's the marketing problem here; it isn't clear to the average consumer what the use case, if any, actually is.
I continue to wear one because it is easier to check the time that way than dig the thing out of my pocket, turn it on, get it to recognize my thumb or demand a pin, etc., especially when driving.
And, of course, because I'm old and not hip.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/57044295/samsonite-briefcase-wi...
It works great as a case for my laptop. It's fun being unhip :-)
Edit: I've used modern soft laptop bags, but they tend to develop tears and small holes through which things fall out unnoticed. Urgh. The Samsonite doesn't have that failure mode.
It had 3 uses: 1) seeing who's ringing and dismissing calls in meetings where you left the ringtone on 2) being able to read full message threads through the notifications without having to "read" them in the apps (sneaky for Messenger and Hangouts) 3) pretending you're not a tourist by getting navigation directions on the wrist rather than being obvious and looking at your phone.
Suffice to say, I now wear a nice normal watch that I love dearly.
Smartwatches will always be a secondary display and should be marketed as such.
Looks like they should turn to some niche marketing strategies if they're not already because people who like Pebbles REALLY like Pebbles I find, though they are rare to begin with.
Since I previously wore watches, I find it natural to wear. And because I never had luxury watches (Seiko was my ceiling), I don't mind that smartwatches aren't fancier-looking. I understand that watch-nevers and timepiece aficionados may feel differently...
The KS backers have nothing delivered.
Annoyingly, the folks who waited for the store version will be getting theirs before the Kickstarter backers do. The community took a big hit when they prioritized WalMart over the folks who helped them get off the ground. Pebble's community has always been a strong point for the company - not sure if that'll keep being true, so their blip might turn into a bigger slide.
Disclaimer: Backer of Pebble 2 who won't be getting his watch until at least mid-November.
USAA has a great watch app, though, which somehow has many fewer reliability/latency problems than every other app. I can do most of my banking just walking down the hall while my phone is locked up at my desk.
Now here we are and society isn't going in for it. Bluetooth head sets, smartwatches, Google Glass, none of it is sticking. Even though smart phones are becoming cumbersome due to size and inability to use hands-free or even one-handed well.
Are we ever going to see a cyberpunk future?
I have a Nexus 6 (one of the larger phones) and don't find it cumbersome at all. It's certainly more practical compared to trying to do anything meaningful on a smartwatch.
Mind you I had a blue collar job at the time so there was a lot of opportunity for phone destruction.
Solve the power problem and we'll see a huge jump in technology. Right now they are trying to solve it by making more and more efficient processors that use less power and perform better over the same amount of time.
We didn't get to see a steampunk future starting with the early 1900s even though books like Jules Verne's were quite popular at the time (and quite some time after that), so I don't think we're going to see a cyberpunk future anytime soon, if ever. The best that we can do is to re-watch shows like "Akira" and think about what could have been.
Google Glass was obscenely expensive, invitation-only -- circumstances around its availability made it clear it's a tech demo for technology 'futurists', and not a product within reach (or intended for) the general public. Naive defaults about it recording everything caused a privacy storm; behavior on part of its users led to widespread derision.
Smartwatches in their current form are solutions looking for a problem. It's obscene that notifications and fitness are the only two use-cases most makers were able to identify.
All these devices are plagued by voice control: speaking to your device in public is neither very considerate to those around you, nor privacy-preserving. The fact is, even if speech recognition systems are working well, most people are uneasy issuing content-rich commands, like entire bodies of emails, in public earshot. Until someone solves this shortcoming reliably, none of these devices will see widespread public appeal.
You mean, crypto wars and threats of civilization impacting DDoS don't count?
https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore?q=apple%20watch,pebb...
Seems interest in smart watches happens at Christmas time. There is a problem with that because you don't buy people the same present every year and there cannot be that many people wanting a new smart watch at Christmas, particularly if it is marginally better than their existing smart watch.
I think the same people that bought 3D televisions and tablets bought smart watches, they will be wanting something else next. Maybe they will return to buying smart watches when there is some new battery-defying functionality to them, i.e. they are as good as smart phones in miniature with lots of previously unimagined 'Pokemon Go' grade apps that make the upgrade worth it.
I also do not believe that any of the smart watches cut the mustard as far as true watch aficionados are concerned. To some people the fanciest ceramic iWatch is on an equal par with a resin calculator watch, lacking intangible heritage things and therefore not a cool item in their minds (they probably fear not being able to use a smart watch). These same people were equally snobbish about digital photography, therefore it could take a generation before smart watches are accepted 'artistically' by people who are like that.
I am hoping that a category killing smart watch gets made by Google in the same price range as a Chromecast. For £30 a lot of people would give a smart watch a go.
I wear "nice" watches occasionally, usually any time i have to wear a suit. As a toy, an epaper watch with actual physical hands would be pretty cool. The two extra hands on something like a diving watch could be used for other gauges, maybe unread email count or something goofy like that.
A watch seems like the right target for that semi connected on call state. Sort of like a modern pager. I'm not reading email, or available on hangouts. But i'll get the alert that we need to communicate. Low key, non intrusive, acceptable at a funeral. Just a few bits of information.
One of the original smart watches was Swatch's The Beep - a watch / pager mashup.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/wear-your-heart-on-y...
instead, i want a band. I'm still waiting for an Android Wear band. i want something a bit like the Microsoft band 2 [1], but slimmer and a smaller screen. something as a notification device and to take voice notes. but i don't need it to replace my watch because it's not "on" when i look at it.
For telling the time, I'll either wear a "proper" watch (as well) or none at all.
[1] I'm on my 3rd ms band. they randomly die (stop charging). ms are good about it and replace it quickly... but soon my warranty will be up and it's all over.
The charge seems to last just enough to fall flat at the most inconvenient times, i.e. when I am just about to leave the house all day, or right when I am about to go to bed (I use the watch primarily for sleep tracking).
Most of the apps on the watch kind of require you to wear it consistently all of the time to give you meaningful data, however current battery life means you end up with large gaps in your human telemetry that your data is always missing vital chunks.
Your friend gave you a $300+ Apple Watch, not a $50 sleep tracker. Charge it at night and if you really do want a sleep tracker then buy a sleep tracker.
Strange analogies aside - the point of my post is that the Apple Watch uses too much of my time and energy to 'baby' it and make sure it is operationally ready. Yes, I love unlocking my Mac with it, getting the time and reading notifications on it, so big bonus there. I did used to have Fitbit device for a long while there and enjoyed the fact that I only had to plan and think about charging it every 2 or 3 weeks, rather than every 1.3 days.
Even if it was an even 24 hours recharge cycle for the Watch, it would be a darn sight more convenient, as I could get into routine of charging it at a set time every day, but the fact that it (a) runs out of charge at different times of the day and (b) takes a long time to fully charge up means that it just takes up too much of my conscious thought to manage it, and I would far rather spend that time and energy elsewhere on things I consider more important. Heck, I have enough trouble keeping my cats fed and happy - I don't need something else constantly bullying me as well.
Similar with your Ferrari analogy above. Rules permitting, it would make an awesome golf cart and I would do so without hesitation. My main problem would be 'babying' it again and worrying about other golfers denting it with errant shots or thrown clubs (you'd have to play golf with me one day to see how prevalent that is among the guys I play with!) :)
First world problems, I know, but I think it is a big factor as to why most of the first world seems to shun the smart watches.
Also, you are a way better driver than me.
They have GPS watches, but the battery seems to last maybe a day or two. My dad isn't going to remember to do that, so I would need to do so on a less frequent basis.
Maybe with some self-charging based on user movement (they used to make self-winding watches)? Keep GPS off until receive (authenticated) SMS message asking it to turn on, then report back position? Or maybe just triangulate position based on cell towers every 15 min...
What I get now is some piece of crap that needs to be charged every night. So I basically have no features while I'm sleeping. I can't just wake up in the middle of the night an instantly know what the time is.
As a battery saving measure, the time isn't displayed until I turn my wrist and wait some obscene amount of time (around a second?). It also goes from being dark to being lit... so much for being discrete.
I wish they would stop calling these things "watches" just because they go on your wrist. I expect anything called a watch to have the features of a watch and be on my wrist pretty much all of the time. Call it a fitness tracker if it's not meant to be worn 24/7.
Let me know when battery life is within a couple of orders of magnitude of real watches, then maybe I'll revisit.
Good, because of the pot and kettle thing.
A watch should be good to tell the time. smartwatches are a throwback to the 70's where you had to press a little button.
I'm still happy enough with being able to more or less customize my watchface, but if you both care about your privacy and want to make serious use of the "smart" smartwatch features, I don't think there's currently anything on the market for you.
I sleep with my Apple Watch on every night. I use it in tandem with my phone as an alarm clock. (That's actually incredibly useful. I haven't slept through an alarm a single time since I started doing this.)
It needs to be charged once per 24 hour period, but it doesn't have to be charged at night. I pop mine on the charger in the morning when I get ready for the day (shower, etc.) and at night when I get ready for bed. That's all it takes for me to keep it charged. It's never died on me in a year. In fact, it's never even entered power saving mode, which will retain the features of a "dumb" watch (telling the time) which you stated you desired at night.
Traditional look, smart features, and 2-year battery life.
Having an Apple Watch now for about 6 months, I can say I love it, and none of those things (and I shared the same skepticism before buying one) have proven to be issues.
I don't tend to look at my watch when I sleep - so that one's easy, and when you charge the watch its in a mode that gives off a low-light time (nightstand mode, i think they call it). On top of that, it takes about an hour to charge, so often I end up charging it during my night time regiment, and by the time I go to bed, i COULD wear it (if i need to make sure I'm up early for something, i wear it so i get the vibration)
If you want a traditional watch, then get a traditional watch - comparing it to a traditional watch and holding to the same standards is not a position of common sense...
Totally agree, the old Nokia phones used to last entire week with a single charge, I don't see people hanging on to it.
I've seen many skeptics who end up actually likeing smart watches after using them.
Only one person I've known who's had a smartwatch has told me that they were worth the money. In general, the consensus has been "Given that I have it, I like it. But it's not a big enough deal to be worth several hundred dollars."
I don't think this is accurate. Someone brought up a comparison of smartphone to a Nokia phone, but this is not the same kind of comparison. A smartphone greatly simplified user interface and made accessing the internet and sharing much easier, and also created new ways of interacting (swiping etc). Whereas, the watch seems to be very featureful sure, but the internet is already accessible using your phone. And the added worry of carrying yet another charger when traveling (and the horror of losing it...). Now, a traditional watch, you don't worry about it for YEARS, not a week. Its mostly another ornament, like a cap or a shirt.
It may be a difference in temperament. But personally, I like to reduce things in my life which require any form of attention: because I forget things very easily (or am just too lazy to do them).
Also, this may not apply to everyone, but there is simply too many beautifully crafted wristwatches out there for me to ever seriously consider a smartwatch.
That was exactly my primary concern. In practice though, you (well, I, and most people) charge my phone at night. I set it next to the bed and plug it in... now my watch charger is right next to my phone charger, so its a no-brainer (and the wristband is fast on/off - thats important to me). Turns out because of the phone, i had no new habit to get into :)
The same happens with e.g. paper vs computer. With paper the "battery" lasts forever. But you tradeoff some things to get other stuff.
>What I get now is some piece of crap that needs to be charged every night. So I basically have no features while I'm sleeping. I can't just wake up in the middle of the night an instantly know what the time is.
Well, you probably have your phone next to you, your alarm clock next to the bed, and several other clocks nearby in the bedroom.
So I should supplement my smart watch with other devices in order to know what time it is? Makes $ense.
In order to know what time it is:
One could see oneself suffering this huge inconvenience when sleeping if they value the other things their smartwatch does when it's charged and their are not at bed at night...Besides, no reason to buy a smartwatch for its timekeeping, you could just as well buy a $10 Casio watch and be done with it. Or one of those alarm-clock/radio bedstand thingies.
What does the watch being waterproof have to do with wearing it in bed?
my casio digitals are solar. life is too short to replace or charge watch batteries. i mean, this problem was solved nearly a century ago.
the cheapest automatics are made by seiko and are barely $50. solars are cheaper.
i'll never buy a smartwatch until they're one or the other. watches should not have batteries or any other design feature that renders them useless on purpose.
No Smartwatch for me, I think my mechanical watch is much smarter.
It has to solve SOME problem that some subset of people care about so intensely that you don't mind the many ways in which it is not as mature as the incumbent.
It's clear that the current smart watches do not accomplish this for you. That's ok as long as there is an initial target audience for which they do. Whether that is the case right now.. well, we'll see.
The tricky part is that they face a crossing-the-chasm problem now. The initial group of users is happy - but does that generalize to all users? Is it worth continuing to invest money into what's currently a niche market? Tivos, Blackberries, WebTV, 1st-gen PCs all found success in an early adopter market that was roughly as large as the smartwatch market is now, but it took a major re-envisioning of the concept before they became a mainstream product that all customers wanted.
The device in question is a Fitbit fitness tracker. The killer feature regarding the battery is the ratio of life to charging time, viz that I can wear it all day and all night (gaining sleep tracking and, best of all, a silent vibrating alarm) and keep the battery topped up in the duration of a daily shower. Not 24/7, but 23.6/7 easily.
My Moto360 turns on instantly when I flip the wrist.
> I can't just wake up in the middle of the night an instantly know what the time is.
The Moto360 charging on its cradle shows the time pretty much like an ordinary stationary clock. It glows softly in the dark and shows you the time. It's a lot more visible that way compared to an old wristwatch.
> Let me know when battery life is within a couple of orders of magnitude of real watches
That is a legitimate complaint.
However, showing time is much less important nowadays, I think. Pretty much anything that uses electricity can show you the time. In my kitchen, there's something like 3 time displays visible at once. My wife's car has two (one is the old car clock, the other is from the new radio I've installed a while ago).
The reason why I wear a smartwatch is to avoid having to pull out the phone every time I get a notification. That, IMO, is the killer app of the smartwatch. I get the notification sound, just flip the wrist; decide whether it needs attention, and act accordingly or ignore. Done. Super-useful.
I agree that as timepieces alone the smartwatches are a regression.
Check out Vector Watch. It's more like a traditional watch that is also smart (it tells you when you got a phone call, an email, a meeting etc), the battery lasts for more than 30 days and it's always on.
Some might say that's exactly what they have :)
After the world is over, I'll still be able to tell time.
I would love a smart watchband so I can get meeting alerts but I don't see a way they can make a smartwatch that beats my $100 mechanical.
https://wearchronos.com/
I'd have to get one and try it out first, though; it seems like a reasonable compromise.
It's also beautiful. It's the only thing I wear, other than my wedding ring, that could be considered jewelry. I'm going to give it to my son some day. And at that moment, perhaps 40-60 years from now, it will still be a functional work of art.
I look at smart watches vs. dumb watches and just think it's a bunch of total nonsense. Eventually, yes, they will likely get their, but it's going to 50-something years from now when it's cheaper to put a super computer in something than it is to leave it out.
2017 may well be the year for watches. This topic is pointless now given it's end of Oct and BF and Christmas is coming up soon. Let's revisit this topic mid 2017.
*edit, spelling.
If I just needed to know the time, I'd buy a watch. If I need to know the time and make a call, I'd buy a smartphone.
Which I did.
Welcome to the future. We don't really solve problems - we just invent new ones and call the old problems solved.
Hell, I don't even remember what problem smartwatches were supposed to solve!
I'm going to go get off my own damn lawn.
- Screening calls
- Switching/pausing music
- Reading and (briefly) responding to texts
- checking the time (no, seriously : p)
I own an Apple Watch, and a Pebble before it, but honestly until more devices are addressable by such devices, it's usability is limited.
I think it may also have something to do with the relative popularity of Alexa and pervasive voice input in general - though I shy away from those due to privacy concerns. I mean, why wear a watch and tap for Siri when you can just call out for Alexa (and now Google) to ask about weather?
(edited for clarity)
I do see value added in the notification mirroring, however. There are many situations where it's useful to see updates without taking out and unlocking your phone: at a meeting, with your hands full, walking around in a crowd. I hadn't worn my watch for the better chunk of a year until two weeks ago when I needed instant Twitter notifications during business hours should a convention I attend start selling its badges. Now that I have those badges, it's back into the drawer until needed again. My calculator watch is more comfortable and I have metal watches that look nicer. Unless I have a defined need for notifications on my wrist, I currently am better off with a conventional watch.