> The Peak never truly competed with Fitbit devices, and it certainly didn't stand up to the Apple Watch when that device debuted in 2015.
I actually really liked my Peak, whose battery lasted nearly a week, and which had a reliable heart rate monitor. After the recall, I tried an Apple Watch (v1) and various other smartwatches. The Apple Watch was, for my purposes, inferior to the Peak in several ways: the battery life was very short, it had no HR monitor, and it was very expensive. In my experience, the Peak even pushed notifications from my iPhone more reliably than the Apple Watch.
To be sure, the Peak wasn't beautiful, but as a V1 it seemed like a product with legs.
disclosure: I received my Peak for free from Intel at their ICAP conference.
Similar feelings about my Pebble Time. The Apple Watch throws away the battery life and replaces it with things I don't need. I don't have a heartrate monitor though, and they went out of business before the v2 could add it.
As far as the Apple Watch's heartrate monitoring is concerned, it definitely has one. Not only that, it's significantly more accurate than any other fitness tracker's.
I actually ended up with the Pebble Time also, and excitedly pre-ordered the Time 2. I would have been willing to pay so much more for it, and I wish they'd just told their backers that either everyone could pay an extra $100 or it was gonna go bust. I imagine I'm not the only one who would pay Apple Watch prices for a Pebble Time 2.
I have no idea what I'll get when my current Pebble bites the dust. I'm not sure which is more likely: that Apple offer a watch with more than a couple days battery life, or that Fitbit actually integrate the Pebble tech (and reliability) into their devices. Sigh.
I was in the same boat - I ended up replacing my third Pebble with a Garmin Vivoactive HR. It seems to have fulfilled all of my old requirements (notifications, good battery, custom watch faces, 3rd party apps), and then added a few I didn't know I wanted (GPS fitness tracking, Heart Rate Monitor).
I've had an original Apple Watch for three years and have never needed more battery life. You charge it when you sleep. It charges super fast so if your forget you can charge it while taking a shower. When I forgot to charge it once, it still lasted all the second day too.
"it's significantly more accurate than any other fitness tracker's"
More precisely, according to one study, compared to other devices including Fitbit's 2014 model, Surge, Apple Watch in workout mode was found to be more accurate.
You know Apple Watch was in workout mode for the study because outside of workout mode Apple Watch only measures heart rate when you're still, according to https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204666 ... note that in workout mode Apple Watch battery life is "up to 8 hours" according to https://www.apple.com/watch/battery.html
The study did not examine more recent Fitbit models (Blaze, Charge 2, Alta HR) and did not examine Apple Watch outside of workout mode.
Disclaimer: I work for Fitbit but don't speak for Fitbit.
I'd also take the results of that study with a pinch of salt - even if it is "the best" among the very small number of watches tested, most athlete focused reviews of the Apple Watch's HR performance show it being noticeably worse than a dedicated Bluetooth or ANT+ chest strap monitor, like the kind many cyclists and runners use. Speaking from my own experiences, the collection of ANT+ HR straps I've amassed over the years all work better than my Apple Watch's optical system does - way less odd outlier values etc. This seems to be true of most wrist worn optical heart rate measurement systems. If you are really keen to use heart rate as a training tool, the Apple Watch arguably shouldn't be your first choice.
"What’s notable to start with is that it took almost 2 minutes after pressing the start button for the Apple Watch to decide on a heart rate. At which point that heart rate was incorrect by 40 beats. It wasn’t until 7 minutes into the run that it agreed with everyone else."
> Apple Watch was, for my purposes, inferior to the Peak in several ways... it had no HR monitor...
Every single model of Apple Watch since launch has shipped with the same optical HR measurement system (IIRC teardowns of gen 2 confirm this), working on largely the same principle as the optical system on the Peak watch.
The writing has been on the wall for a while. The blogger DCRainmaker has superb coverage of the fitness tracking industry, has covered Intel's moves in this space pretty thoroughly - in the case of Basis we knew this largely a year ago.
I'm curious if this affects the Recon Jet? This was one of the more innovative things Intel's wearable teams were working on, basically Google Glass for sports.
Or, another perspective, all of the Tech Wearables industry is pretty much DOA. Intel is hardly the first company to bow out of the space, and will likely not be the last.
The tech simply isn't there. Smartwatches don't have enough utility compared to the downsides of constant charging, and are much too power hungry for automatic or mobile charging (though wireless charging probably gave these devices a slight bump).
Battery life is very much the chief complaint, followed by weight (which, of course, ties right back to battery life). The smarter you want to make a device, the more power it needs, and the more of a battery it needs. Even your ATmegas are going to struggle - we're simply just not there yet.
I suspect it'll be another case of the Newton - it's cool, way ahead of its time tech. Give it ten years and we'll be way closer to making something truly useful with it.
I disagree that battery life is really the main issue. So do our phones, which everyone seems to get by with just fine. My watch gets through 2 days fine, it's just habit now to put it on the charger at night.
I agree that the problem is "enough utility", as not all the industry is dead: there are some niches where it is very much alive.
Among runners and cyclists, Garmin dominates. (I estimate that would make up 25% of my social circle.) I would use my Apple Watch for fitness and outdoor activities far more often if the software/apps were better, as the hardware potential is just sitting there untapped.
The other utility I find valuable in it is in notifications and call handoff, along with some utilities like stopwatch, timer and calculator. But these latter utilities have been available in electronic watches long before "smart" watches. And I would use Apple Pay every day if the stupid Australian banks supported it!
IMHO the failure in smartwatches is that there's no killer app for the mass market, no actual problem that they solve.
Apple sold $6B worth of Apple Watches in it's first year. Sales increased when they released the version 2 watches. The rest of the market may be hurting but Apple is crushing it with theirs.
Intel's on-the-go and embedded offerings always seemed half-assed. I'm not really clear on why they bothered at all. If they had committed, they might've been able to target similar spaces to Cortex-M processors.
But they didn't commit, and never seemed like they intended to.
I worked for one of the major fitness apps and we partnered with Intel on a couple integrations years back.
I never understood the huge investment in stand alone wearables/tech outside of apple/google. The writing was on the wall (for me at least) from day one. It is/was hard enough for a fitness app to breakthrough without adding complex hardware and supply chain to the mix.
1) Hardware unitaskers at scale (not niche/pro markets) do not seem to ever win, platforms do. Why pay $100 for a "connected" pedometer when I can pay $300 for a do-everything watch from a massive established brand. Platforms have the scale to get better and better while everyone else struggles and falls behind.
2) (Real) Retention on fitness wearables in general is terrrrrrible (relative to other products). After about 30 days, the novelty/initial behavior change wears off unless you have a chronic or serious need to track. People may report using them...but getting value is different from "clipping on". tl;dr fitness is fucking hard.
3) I think fitness/health is the killer app. But its a fully commoditized utility by now. Its "contacts" or "notepad" but for tracking...so its not really blowing anyone's mind, its table stakes. And fitness is a "thing I should do" not a "thing I want to do" for most people -uphill behavioral battle vs. e.g. putting an awesome camera in a phone I just have to click to open.
What do you think about Under Armour's strategy of spending close to a billion on I think 3 acquisitions like the MapMyFitness suite of apps, MyFitnessPal, and one other. Sticking to apps/sites vs wearables.
18 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 66.0 ms ] threadI actually really liked my Peak, whose battery lasted nearly a week, and which had a reliable heart rate monitor. After the recall, I tried an Apple Watch (v1) and various other smartwatches. The Apple Watch was, for my purposes, inferior to the Peak in several ways: the battery life was very short, it had no HR monitor, and it was very expensive. In my experience, the Peak even pushed notifications from my iPhone more reliably than the Apple Watch.
To be sure, the Peak wasn't beautiful, but as a V1 it seemed like a product with legs.
disclosure: I received my Peak for free from Intel at their ICAP conference.
As far as the Apple Watch's heartrate monitoring is concerned, it definitely has one. Not only that, it's significantly more accurate than any other fitness tracker's.
http://www.mdpi.com/jpm/jpm-07-00003/article_deploy/html/ima...
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/7/2/3/htm
I have no idea what I'll get when my current Pebble bites the dust. I'm not sure which is more likely: that Apple offer a watch with more than a couple days battery life, or that Fitbit actually integrate the Pebble tech (and reliability) into their devices. Sigh.
And it has an excellent heart rate monitor.
More precisely, according to one study, compared to other devices including Fitbit's 2014 model, Surge, Apple Watch in workout mode was found to be more accurate.
You know Apple Watch was in workout mode for the study because outside of workout mode Apple Watch only measures heart rate when you're still, according to https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204666 ... note that in workout mode Apple Watch battery life is "up to 8 hours" according to https://www.apple.com/watch/battery.html
The study did not examine more recent Fitbit models (Blaze, Charge 2, Alta HR) and did not examine Apple Watch outside of workout mode.
Disclaimer: I work for Fitbit but don't speak for Fitbit.
"What’s notable to start with is that it took almost 2 minutes after pressing the start button for the Apple Watch to decide on a heart rate. At which point that heart rate was incorrect by 40 beats. It wasn’t until 7 minutes into the run that it agreed with everyone else."
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2017/02/apple-watch-series2-nike...
Every single model of Apple Watch since launch has shipped with the same optical HR measurement system (IIRC teardowns of gen 2 confirm this), working on largely the same principle as the optical system on the Peak watch.
https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/08/tech-tidbits-basis-close...
I'm curious if this affects the Recon Jet? This was one of the more innovative things Intel's wearable teams were working on, basically Google Glass for sports.
https://www.reconinstruments.com/products/jet/
The tech simply isn't there. Smartwatches don't have enough utility compared to the downsides of constant charging, and are much too power hungry for automatic or mobile charging (though wireless charging probably gave these devices a slight bump).
Battery life is very much the chief complaint, followed by weight (which, of course, ties right back to battery life). The smarter you want to make a device, the more power it needs, and the more of a battery it needs. Even your ATmegas are going to struggle - we're simply just not there yet.
I suspect it'll be another case of the Newton - it's cool, way ahead of its time tech. Give it ten years and we'll be way closer to making something truly useful with it.
I agree that the problem is "enough utility", as not all the industry is dead: there are some niches where it is very much alive.
Among runners and cyclists, Garmin dominates. (I estimate that would make up 25% of my social circle.) I would use my Apple Watch for fitness and outdoor activities far more often if the software/apps were better, as the hardware potential is just sitting there untapped.
The other utility I find valuable in it is in notifications and call handoff, along with some utilities like stopwatch, timer and calculator. But these latter utilities have been available in electronic watches long before "smart" watches. And I would use Apple Pay every day if the stupid Australian banks supported it!
IMHO the failure in smartwatches is that there's no killer app for the mass market, no actual problem that they solve.
But they didn't commit, and never seemed like they intended to.
I never understood the huge investment in stand alone wearables/tech outside of apple/google. The writing was on the wall (for me at least) from day one. It is/was hard enough for a fitness app to breakthrough without adding complex hardware and supply chain to the mix.
1) Hardware unitaskers at scale (not niche/pro markets) do not seem to ever win, platforms do. Why pay $100 for a "connected" pedometer when I can pay $300 for a do-everything watch from a massive established brand. Platforms have the scale to get better and better while everyone else struggles and falls behind.
2) (Real) Retention on fitness wearables in general is terrrrrrible (relative to other products). After about 30 days, the novelty/initial behavior change wears off unless you have a chronic or serious need to track. People may report using them...but getting value is different from "clipping on". tl;dr fitness is fucking hard.
3) I think fitness/health is the killer app. But its a fully commoditized utility by now. Its "contacts" or "notepad" but for tracking...so its not really blowing anyone's mind, its table stakes. And fitness is a "thing I should do" not a "thing I want to do" for most people -uphill behavioral battle vs. e.g. putting an awesome camera in a phone I just have to click to open.