A Third of Consumers Who Bought Wearable Devices Have Ditched Them

An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian reports on research (PDF) into the (alleged) wearable device trend: fully one third of customers who bought one stopped using it within six months. Activity trackers fared even worse: half of them are collecting dust. 'For comparison, you wouldn't find people from the early days of the smartphone saying that they'd abandoned their BlackBerry, Treo or Windows Mobile or Symbian phone. They were the early adopters, and they found utility in having email and (sometimes) web pages on the move. The idea of giving them up just wouldn't occur to them. ... So far, there aren't clear signs of quite what it is that smartwatches and fitness trackers are replacing, in the way that [early] music players did. Useful new technology has to replace or simplify some function, ideally; otherwise it has the challenge of persuading us that we need this entirely new thing. Smartphones are simpler ways to collect your email – and also make phone calls and surf the web (and so on). Fitness trackers... let you track your fitness. But given that 41% of people run with their smartphones, you might get by with a movement tracking app instead. The trouble with devices that claim to track your steps is they're so easily hoaxed by waving your arms around.'"

Comments

Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[VortexCortex]

Same as my experience with Wii owners, or other fads, like slap bracelets.

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[sh00z]

Maybe they learned what they wanted to learn, and didn't "need" (in the first-world sense) the device any longer. I put a power meter on my bicycle. After about a year of riding and reading it, I could estimate from my perceived exertion just about what my power output was, so I removed the device.

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[Charliemopps]

My kid still plays the Wii every weekend and it's actually one of the activities they do in his school for gym when it's raining out. My sister-in-law who's in a nursing home uses one as part of her physical therapy. Fad it is not.

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[N1AK]

Fad doesn't mean that it ceases to exist entirely after the fad ends it means something that goes through a generally short period of intent interest before largely disappearing. That is certainly the case with the Wii which had huge sales initially, and was seen as the future of console gaming, but within half a console generation that view had evaporated.

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[DrLang21]

They play the Wii in gym just because it's raining out? What they hell happen to the classic past times where children learn to endure pain like dodgeball, floor hocky, or my personal favorite, those finger crushing scooters!

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[Thruen]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/er...

Sorry. I kind of wish it was just a trend too, but the fact is, the Wii is still very popular with a lot of people. It seems like a joke to a lot of more "hardcore" gamers, but it's still dominant in a market that was largely ignored before: casuals. I don't play Wii much anymore, especially since I picked up a PS4, but when I do it's because my girlfriend still enjoys it more than any other platform we've tried, and we try every game we can to see if she's interested.

Is it the future of console gaming? No. But for a lot of people it's all they'll ever need for a price they can easily afford.

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[squiggleslash]

Is everyone else missing the point that 2/3 of buyers of wearable devices are still using them after six months?

You and I can protest all day that these things seem stupid to us, but like the Wii, describing them as a "fad" seems way off.

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[umafuckit]

The Wii is a console. I wouldn't call it a fad.

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[ranton]

Same as my experience with Wii owners, or other fads, like slap bracelets.

It is probably also the same as those who bought cars in the 1800s, mobile phones in the 80s, tablets in the 90s, and many other technologies in their infancy. Perhaps wearable technology is a fad, but the fact that a third of consumers who buy them end up not liking them is hardly an indicator of anything. At best it shows that the current products in the market are insufficient for most people.

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[timeOday]

I don't use the heart rate strap on my Garmin watch too often either, although I use the GPS every day. Like you said, after a while you have a pretty good idea of what it would be saying based on how you feel.

So, I think successful gadgets will combine something practical that people will always need, with something new and "exciting" that may or may not have long-term utility. Millions of people already wear watches, so I think smartwatches have chance if they aren't too much additional hassle to charge. Just screening calls and texts would be a useful addition.

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or that the manufacturers have already made their sales. They really don't care if consumers toss them out in the garbage after the first week as long as they keep buying.

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[davester666]

What's a slap bracelet?

Do you get to slap other people when you wear it? Or do you get slapped when somebody notices you are wearing one?

Or does it remind you to slap yourself every once in a while?

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[unrtst]

Is everyone else missing the point that 2/3 of buyers of wearable devices are still using them after six months?

That. And also the statement, "The idea of giving them up just wouldn't occur to them." (wrt early smartphone adopters) is rediculous. A large portion of early adopters of anything end up giving them up. That's part of the early adopter pattern... it's new and shiny, so they early adopt it, and then it's no longer new, so they move on. They may come back to those types of thing later, but it's normal for many people to give up up in the early days. For example, on my first phone with MMS, I set up an email forward to forward all my emails to my phone. Initially, it seemed useful. That was too much, so I changed it to only forward ones matching certain patterns. Initially, that was neat. Then I turned it off because I'd rather not be bothered by it. I rarely every check my email on my phone even today, and I was certainly an early adopter... that doesn't mean it won't or didn't catch on.

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[ComputersKai]

The Wii's Sales have been declining, though.

Re:Gimmicks gonna gimmick.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/er...

Sorry. I kind of wish it was just a trend too, but the fact is, the Wii is still very popular with a lot of people. It seems like a joke to a lot of more "hardcore" gamers, but it's still dominant in a market that was largely ignored before: casuals. I don't play Wii much anymore, especially since I picked up a PS4, but when I do it's because my girlfriend still enjoys it more than any other platform we've tried, and we try every game we can to see if she's interested.
Is it the future of console gaming? No. But for a lot of people it's all they'll ever need for a price they can easily afford.

I think we're soon entering the world of nitpicking. The Forbes author's first line of the article is about his source being controversial and possibly total s***. Then, assuming it's not, the data still shows 3DS, PS4, XBox 360, and PS3 all outselling WiiU. I call WiiU a fad because when it was first released everyone I know was talking about it and we played Wii games after going out to the bar. Now.. I know people with a Wii, but they don't try to get anyone to play it with them and nobody is talking about buying one (if they buy it, they just buy it quietly). That is why I think it's a fad.

Wearable device feasibility

[FunkyLich]

Wearable devices will not be massively popular unless they will be as simple to use as headphones. Plug and it works and you don't need to think anymore about them.
There are many people I know who dislike bluetooth headphones just because after a while they get tired from sychronising them with the device, finding the proper frequency, there is noise and interference and whatever have you. Or they need something for a special purpose, such as to cheat at an exam hearing through a tiny invisible earplug deep in your ear what someone else at the next room is reading. But for normal people and normal life, either wearable devices will be as simple as switching on the TV, either the producers should really think targeting not "all the people there is" but selected target groups and usage specific audiences.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[sribe]

Well, there's that. And they also have to provide some functionality that users actually want. Before the iPhone, I could imagine wanting a pocket-sized device with a decent address book synced to my computer, and full web access, and nice apps. (Note, I am certainly not claiming that I anticipated the actual design, just that I could imagine wanting those particular functions in my pocket.) I cannot imagine anything that I really want a smart watch to do.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Your thought about selected target groups is right - give a wearable device a purpose that is not easily replicated by a smart phone - say a genuine exercise watch like a Garmin Forerunner 910 - and you have something that gets used. A lot. And a group wants it. And buys it.

See, even the best apps simply cant do what the current crop of exerise wearables can do and nor can they drill down and give you the wealth of information. A Garmin 510 for cycling is soooooo god damn better than ANY smartphone and when uploaded to say Strava give such an amazing wealth of information. You have one device that covers half a dozen apps and simply does it better. So many people are switching to Garmins or similar for their fitness that is quite clear Garmin and the like have found a good wearables niche to exploit.

Google Glass is a heap of utter shit. However as a cyclist I'm rather expecting Garmin to produce their version and have a HUD option for their other sports devices. Annnnd..... I'd buy that in a heartbeat. A HUD displaying eveything a 510 does or more? Live power graphs in your face? Speed, cadence? An 810's ability to give directions live, displayed on screen? Now THIS is a market waiting to be exploited.

So.... wearables that mimic a smartphone? DOA. Wearables from Garmin? Oh. Hell. YES. Garmin and co have got the whole wearables thing worked out and that's your future of them.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I can filter from the OH SHINY CROWD the smart watches are only useful if pulling your phone out to check your lock screen notifications is too hard.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[N1AK]

I don't wear a watch and as I wear glasses I'd much prefer an enhanced pair of glasses over an additional wearable device. A watch doesn't provide a good input interface and it doesn't provide that much in terms of output to make wearing an additional device worthwhile over pulling a phone out of your pocket.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly none of that existed before smartphones... If I invented one back them I would have called it the Palm Pilot, and it would have been wildly successful.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[XxtraLarGe]

There are many people I know who dislike bluetooth headphones just because after a while they get tired from sychronising them with the device, finding the proper frequency, there is noise and interference and whatever have you.

What bluetooth headphones are these people using? I've only had to pair mine once with each device I use it with, and never had to mess with changing frequencies. I have to charge it once a week for like 2 hours, but that's a fair trade-off for not having a wire attached.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[gigne]

Agreed. Simple wins. I have really thought that my Pebble would get forgotton as time went on, but I find it so easy and so convenient that I really miss it. The Pebble (unlike the gear) is simple, sleek and performs one function well. You barely even have to charge the thing.
In a world where a clock on the wall is increasingly rare, having the time on your wrist is massively useful. Not everyone wants to drag a smartphone out just to tell the time.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[invid]

I wear glasses, and if they suddenly had a HUD that was smart enough to keep out of my direct line of sight unless I wanted it, and if they had a camera and could understand some basic hand gestures from me, and make a virtual keyboard if necessary, and if they had headphones integrated into the part that rested on my ears, and if they were a smart phone and GPS and video camera and web browser, and if they didn't cost more than your average smart phone, and if they looked like normal glasses, I would be ok with that.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[invid]

Oh yeah, and understand natural language commands and stream ultra high-def video.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree about the simplicity aspect. For example, I'm a runner and I own a GPS watch to track my milage. Its a pain in the ass...For one, the charge only lasts for about 8 hours when GPS is on and only 3 weeks even if you never turn on GPS. I can't even get a week out of a charge! Additionally, its a mess to get data from it via bluetooth or USB, the interface is slow (for example, when viewing the history)and clunky, and it takes 1-3 minutes to "sync" when I turn on the GPS reciever. Now that I joined the smartphone club, I can get all the same functionality out of my phone (which I carry while running anyway!) so why would I want this device?

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[Sockatume]

If Google want Glass to be well-adopted they can simply drop the camera; the camera is not all that useful in smartwatch-type applications, and is worthless as an AR device given that the display is tiny and off in the corner of your vision.

Unfortunately Google think that they can just brow-beat and market their way around an engineering and design problem in this instance.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's exactly like that. You poor delusional child. You're Galileo for wearing a camera.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[meta-monkey]

That sounds like an amazing product. Once Google Glass can do that, I'll buy one.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[sidnelson13]

Except that, for Glass, it makes all the sense having a Camera. Being able to capture what you see (be it for fun, security, or even mischievous purposes) makes a whole lot of difference.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google want Glass to be well-adopted they can simply drop the camera; the camera is not all that useful in smartwatch-type applications, and is worthless as an AR device given that the display is tiny and off in the corner of your vision.

Unfortunately Google think that they can just brow-beat and market their way around an engineering and design problem in this instance.

Exactly: if it didn't have a camera then much of the glasshole backlash would never have started in the first place.

Screw email updates in the corner of my eye, offer me a pair of ray-bans that grant me Terminator vision across my entire field of view and you'll have my attention.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[kyrsjo]

Yeah, I agree. Skipping the camera could make it lighter and remove most of the stigma - I for one would consider getting a google-glass like device which is display-only (and integrated/clip on to my prescription glasses). I honestly don't see any use for a tiny crappy camera attached to my glasses.

If I want to take pictures, I can use the cell phone in my pocket OR a real camera. Actually, many new system cameras have integration with smart phones, meaning that you can see the viewfinder, control exposure/focus/etc., and release the shutter using your Android/iPhone over WiFi. Something like *that* would be cool to have integrated with GG - use the controls on the camera, but have the viewfinder attached to your glasses.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[BasilBrush]

The kind of person that thinks wearing some electronic spectacles is equivalent to being Copernicus is indeed a Glasshole.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[kyrsjo]

Clocks on the wall are maybe rarer, but tons of other devices shows a clock on their displays, which perform much of the same function.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[BasilBrush]

Unfortunately Google think that they can just brow-beat and market their way around an engineering and design problem in this instance.

I'm not so sure. Glass seems to be taking an awful long time to come to market. They seem to be aware most people want nothing to do with it. I can see it being dropped even before it's publicly released.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[Lumpy]

The camera could be a small removable module

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[schlachter]

technology for smart masses

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[motorhead]

And X-Ray vision...

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[jandersen]

Wearable devices will not be massively popular unless they will be as simple to use as headphones

- and give the user something they actually want or need. The smartphone is popular because it is flexible enough to cover a wide range of needs that people have, not because it is cool or "wearable". In fact, I suspect that being wearable often counts against a device, because it so often has to be worn in a highly specific way, unlike a phone, which you just stuff into a pocket, bag, glove compartment or whatever.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[ColdWetDog]

Well, you're in luck. Just sign up for the F-35 program and get fitted for one of these bad boys.

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Remove the camera and it will be somewhat more acceptable.

One question, I really need to ask Glass users.
Do you take them off when you go to a public bathroom? (I really don't care to know about private ones.)

Re:Wearable device feasibility

[mrchaotica]

My requirements for a useful wearable device would be a little different:

• Have an eye-tracking camera and an outward-facing camera that can pan so that the camera is looking at the same thing my eyes are focused on
• Be able to actually use the camera for more than 20 minutes without the battery running out (which Google Glass can't do, by the way)
• Skip the explicit "natural language commands" and instead have software that pays attention to what I'm doing, looking at, and talking to (i.e., talking to people, not the device), and then figures out what to do based on that
• Understand hand gestures/virtual keyboard-type stuff using a separate device that I wear like a ring or something, so that I can leave my hand down at my side instead of putting it within the camera view
• Do NOT send any of the information collected by any sensor to anyone unless I explicitly say so. Do all processing either on the device or on a server I have set up under my own control

Obviously a working model for some companies

[rmdingler]

There is a segment of the population who will always covet the newest, latest, greatest, but fads are as quick to wane as the companies are to make your prize obsolete with a new model.

Re:Obviously a working model for some companies

[Big Hairy Ian]

You've got remember most of these people still think the digital watch is a pretty neat idea :D

Re:Obviously a working model for some companies

[Anonymous Coward]

That segment of the population is much smaller since Steve Jobs died.

Re:Obviously a working model for some companies

[rmdingler]

You've got remember most of these people still think the digital watch is a pretty neat idea :D

There was a niche market for even that.

We were required to pass a basic skills assessment test to advance a grade in school that included telling the time by the hands of the clock.

I don't recall what grade it was, but one year there was a plausibly dyslexic chap who was rescued on the third makeup test by borrowing his grandfathers Pulsar.

Re:Obviously a working model for some companies

[JaredOfEuropa]

A watch is a nice example of a wearable device. And today even more so than back when those lines were written, watches are worn as an accessory rather than for their function. In that light, it surprises me that most of the currently available "smart" watches are ugly as sin.

Re:Obviously a working model for some companies

[Simon Brooke]

Just keep banging the rocks together, guys.

Yea, but...

[fullback]

wearable devices are a hit compared to the rate of married couples who stay together. Does that mean marriage is a fad?

Re:Yea, but...

[CastrTroy]

Most people don't quit marriage altogether, they just move onto a new model.

I can wear my phone just fine, in a pocket

[captainpanic]

Pants have pockets. Phones fit in pockets. Problem solved. And I know that women tend to not use pockets - I cannot understand why - but they have purses and handbags that are specially designed to hold many things including a phone. Either way, the problem that a wearable smart gadget tries to solve is not a problem in the first place.

Also, I don't have to track my fitness, because I am usually there myself to observe my fitness with my own eyes.

Re:I can wear my phone just fine, in a pocket

[tist]

Indeed. I have yet to see why I need any of these devices on my person. In fact, I get by with very few "apps" and use my phone mostly for "calls" (for those of you who don't remember those, it's when you pick a name form a list and then talk to the person rather than typing a message to them) - very fast, interactive, and simple to use.

Re:I can wear my phone just fine, in a pocket

[Thanshin]

Suit pants don't have the right shape if you stuff things like a phone in the pockets. The interior of the suit jacket is already occupied by the wallet.

I would like to have a way to carry my phone when I'm wearing a suit, better than attached to the belt. A "watch" might be the solution but the existing solutions are not good enough to replace a smartphone.

Re:I can wear my phone just fine, in a pocket

[khallow]

The interior of the suit jacket is already occupied by the wallet.

Use another pocket then. Most pants have two or more. I find the bigger problem is that my phone starts dialing people. I guess I should get a clamshell phone to keep that from happening.

Having said that, I bet there are people who can't stand to have anything in their pockets. If they can tolerate wearing the smartphone in that situation, then that's a case where wearable works.

Re:I can wear my phone just fine, in a pocket

[boteeka]

Also, I don't have to track my fitness, because I am usually there myself to observe my fitness with my own eyes.

That

Re:I can wear my phone just fine, in a pocket

[Anonymous Coward]

If you just want to convey information then a phone call isn't fast, there's all the interaction which slows it down. For a chat, fine, but not for anything else.

Re:I can wear my phone just fine, in a pocket

[SecurityGuy]

A device as heavy as a phone in a pocket while running is annoyingly unpleasant. I have a stretchy belt that holds mine snugly so it doesn't bounce. I suppose I'm agreeing with you. I don't need a wearable smart phone, I just need to wrap a thing around my smart phone which makes it wearable.

Also, I don't have to track my fitness, because I am usually there myself to observe my fitness with my own eyes.

Eh, what works for you and what works for others are just different things. I can observe my own fitness right now, but having actually tracked it for years, it's nice now and again to be reminded that I'm in a lot better shape than when I started. Also, gamification works. I was surprised that once my company started giving us not really enough money to care about to wear one of those devices, I changed my behavior to get the rewards. For some people, tracking your fitness correlates with improving your fitness.

Re:I can wear my phone just fine, in a pocket

[mrchaotica]

Suit pants don't have the right shape if you stuff things like a phone in the pockets. The interior of the suit jacket is already occupied by the wallet.

So, do you have a reason (other than prejudice against left-handed people) why suit jackets don't have interior pockets on both sides?

Re:I can wear my phone just fine, in a pocket

[Solandri]

Pants have pockets. Phones fit in pockets. Problem solved.

Computer storage used to be the size of a washing machine, then a desktop PC, then a brick, then half a brick, then a quarter of a brick, then a deck of playing cards, then a stack of credit cards, then half a stack of credit cards, then a postage stamp, and now a microSD card is about the size of my little fingernail. About the time it went to postage stamp size, people started complaining it was too small and too easy to lose.

The same thing is happening to personal computers. That used to be a desktop, then a laptop, now it's becoming a tablet (or a laptop nearly as small as a tablet), soon it'll be your phone. Looking beyond that, it'll be the size of a credit card, then a postage stamp, and eventually the size of your fingernail. Somewhere between those last three stages, your PC will be so small that carrying it around in your pocket will be too risky because you might lose it.

Wearable computing is the obvious solution. First a device like a wristwatch. Then probably a ring or integrated into your glasses. If you're content living in the present, then good for you. But stop trying to drag down those of us trying to bring the future here more quickly.

i like my wearable device dumb watch

[turkeydance]

it takes a licking, and......

Annoying cable wrangling

[sjbe]

Wearable devices will not be massively popular unless they will be as simple to use as headphones.

Maybe you are different but I don't carry headphones either and frankly I think headphones are a huge PITA. Headphones require all kinds of annoying cable wrangling or if wireless all kinds of unreliable setups that you are constantly dicking around with. Useful? Yes. Simple? Not so much.

I carry precisely 3 items 99% of the time - phone, wallet and keys - and I'd do away with any of them if I had a reasonable way to do so. I don't mind carrying a fitness tracker if I'm actually doing exercise but otherwise the phone should serve that purpose. I don't want to wear a special purpose device unless I'm doing something rather specific. I don't wear a watch except on rare occasions because they serve little purpose these days (clocks are everywhere) and are annoying to wear if you don't have to.

Re:Annoying cable wrangling

[CastrTroy]

I guess it depends on how you travel. If you travel mostly by car, there is little reason to have headphones most of the time, because you can't use them anyway. If you usually travel by public transit, having headphones is almost a necessity. Then again, I'll see people just sit there and do nothing for the entire transit trip. Perhaps they are thinking, but probably not, because they look bored out of their skull. I don't know why everyone isn't doing something on public transit now, be it reading, listening to music/podcasts/radio, or even watching videos. Sitting there, doing nothing, just seems like such a waste of time.

Re:Annoying cable wrangling

[sandytaru]

I was the same until I found the right pair of headphones. Using an older version of the Walkman Z-series now - no cables other than a behind-the-neck, no plugs other than a tiny micro USB port. Other companies besides Sony make 'em now as well. MP3 player built in. They're perfect for what they were made for (podcasts) and eliminate the need to lug around separate headphones and an external music player. Love em to bits.

Re:Annoying cable wrangling

[sjbe]

If you usually travel by public transit, having headphones is almost a necessity.

Different strokes for different folks. I strongly disagree that it is anything resembling a necessity. Preference for many I'll concede but there is no requirement to be listening to something on headphones merely because you are traveling somewhere on public transit.

Sitting there, doing nothing, just seems like such a waste of time.

Personally I prefer to be aware of what's going on around me. I also use travel time to think about things I might not have time for otherwise. Sure, sometime its boring but I have plenty of ways of solving that that don't involve headphones. Plus I find headphones rather uncomfortable in fairly short order and have little interest in using them any more than absolutely necessary. (yes I've tried a lot of pairs and no I don't like any of them)

Re:Annoying cable wrangling

[Savage-Rabbit]

Wearable devices will not be massively popular unless they will be as simple to use as headphones.

Maybe you are different but I don't carry headphones either and frankly I think headphones are a huge PITA. Headphones require all kinds of annoying cable wrangling or if wireless all kinds of unreliable setups that you are constantly dicking around with. Useful? Yes. Simple? Not so much.

I carry precisely 3 items 99% of the time - phone, wallet and keys - and I'd do away with any of them if I had a reasonable way to do so. I don't mind carrying a fitness tracker if I'm actually doing exercise but otherwise the phone should serve that purpose. I don't want to wear a special purpose device unless I'm doing something rather specific. I don't wear a watch except on rare occasions because they serve little purpose these days (clocks are everywhere) and are annoying to wear if you don't have to.

Generally I agree with you and I can see your point with corded headphones but cordless (Bluetooth) ones work fine for me. I used to go through a ton of corded headphones. Usually they'd wear out due to metal fatigue just above the plug to save money. For years I used to shorten the chord and solder it back to the plug like a true penny pinching geek. Then I finally gave up and spent an obscene amount of money on a set of Sennheiser MM 550-X Bluetooth headphones. So far they have, well .... just worked. I also have a couple of sets of Sennheiser MM200 earplugs phones, also Bluetooth. Same story here, they just work. The first set finally wore out after three years of daily use so I bought a second one on sale since this model is out of production now. The only complaint I have so far is that the audio quality suffers a bit because of the Bluetooth link but not so much that I'd forgo the comfort of being wireless.

Speaking of special purpose devices, what I'd really like for safety reasons is a __proper__ HUD for my car. There are after market ones but most of the suck, a HUD should be standard equipment in every car.

Re:Annoying cable wrangling

[BasilBrush]

If you usually travel by public transit, having headphones is almost a necessity. Then again, I'll see people just sit there and do nothing for the entire transit trip.

I find music pumped directly into my head stops me thinking. I'd far rather think.

Re:Annoying cable wrangling

[drummerboybac]

What about audiobooks or podcasts? Better than a book if you get motion-sick

Re:Annoying cable wrangling

[BasilBrush]

They send me to sleep. Literally, I play them when I'm in bed and fall asleep far faster than without them. Again, it's because they stop me thinking.

Re:Annoying cable wrangling

[CastrTroy]

Personally, I find that I often end up tuning out the music or podcasts when I'm listening to them what I start to think of something. They'll often mention something in a podcast, which will get me thinking about some other non-related issue, and I'll completely miss entire sections of podcasts.

Don't wear a watch either.

[TzTerri]

In other news I stopped wearing a watch back in the eighties when my beeper stated telling the time. My iPhone 5s has a motion sensor so no need to wear anything for use with FitBit and fits nicely in my pocket. Plus I use an iPhone wallet case so often I don't even carry a purse when shopping. Last time I want is even more crap to carry.

Re:Don't wear a watch either.

[jittles]

In other news I stopped wearing a watch back in the eighties when my beeper stated telling the time. My iPhone 5s has a motion sensor so no need to wear anything for use with FitBit and fits nicely in my pocket. Plus I use an iPhone wallet case so often I don't even carry a purse when shopping. Last time I want is even more crap to carry.

I love a good watch. They are stylish and much more convenient to use rather than having to reach into my pocket to check the time. This is especially true when I am trying to be discreet during a meeting, date, or while listening to a coworker's inane babbling. There are times when I cannot wear a watch, though, and I am happy that I have my phone as a fallback.

Re:Don't wear a watch either.

[TzTerri]

Guess I should have mentioned that I often do wear a bluetooth headset, like when I'm driving. Also wear earbuds when working out or biking or working in the yard or doing housework. In both cases I ask Siri what time it is and she tells me without having to take my phone out.

Can we do the next story

[Anonymous Coward]

on how many 3D printers are gathering dust in people's homes?

Women's clothing

[sjbe]

And I know that women tend to not use pockets - I cannot understand why

Because a lot of women's clothing tends not to have pockets. Can't use it if you can't buy it. Furthermore there are aesthetic reasons why they tend not to use pockets. Women have a different set of social pressures for appearance than men do.

Re:Women's clothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if women didn't bend to those social pressures they'd no be pressures anymore.
 
Peer pressure is a lame excuse for anyone over the age of 8.

Re:Women's clothing

[sjbe]

Maybe if women didn't bend to those social pressures they'd no be pressures anymore

Grow up. Social pressures always exist and they aren't always bad things. You probably put on pants today and social pressure was a component of that action. Are you going to argue that you shouldn't bend to that social pressure anymore?

Peer pressure is a lame excuse for anyone over the age of 8.

Really? You do whatever you want regardless of the social consequences? (If you answer yes to that then you are either in jail or a liar)

Re:Women's clothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Lame excuse maybe. It doesn't stop it being true.

Re:Women's clothing

[sandytaru]

The aesthetic reasons are stupid. Many pairs of women's pants have FAKE pockets. They look like pockets, but they are sewn shut. Dumbest thing ever.

Re:Women's clothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if women didn't bend to those social pressures they'd no be pressures anymore

Grow up. Social pressures always exist and they aren't always bad things. You probably put on pants today and social pressure was a component of that action. Are you going to argue that you shouldn't bend to that social pressure anymore?

Peer pressure is a lame excuse for anyone over the age of 8.

Really? You do whatever you want regardless of the social consequences? (If you answer yes to that then you are either in jail or a liar)

There's a difference between social pressures and legal pressures. Public decency laws are not a social pressure. That slanderous bitch down the hall is a social pressure. Do you understand the difference yet? Commonly held social preferences can become legal pressures, but even those are far less restrictive than the gossips and other filth that abuse people for fun.

Re:Women's clothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if you put anything in them it would either be uncomfortable or look bad. Simple as that. Sure, all women should go around in cargo shorts, but for some reason they don't. It's really baffling.

Re:Women's clothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up.
 
Thanks for announcing you're an asshat.
 
  Social pressures always exist and they aren't always bad things.
 
Not having pockets for the sake of fashion is benefiting society on what level exactly?
 
  You probably put on pants today and social pressure was a component of that action. Are you going to argue that you shouldn't bend to that social pressure anymore?
 
I wear pants even when I don't need to. There's a large difference between social pressures and publicly accepted standards of decency. We actually have laws based on this. I'd expect your average Slashdotter to understand this.
 
  Really? You do whatever you want regardless of the social consequences? (If you answer yes to that then you are either in jail or a liar)
 
Obeying the law and peer pressures are really two different things. Thanks for showing that you have no concept of how society works.
 
There are arguments that could have been made against not bowing to peer pressure that I would have given a bit of credit to but you've just chosen to be an obtuse extremist who thinks they're insightful.
 
Major fail on your part.

Re:Women's clothing

[sjbe]

The aesthetic reasons are stupid.

I'm just guessing here that you don't date a lot. Aesthetics matter whether we like it or not. Looking nice sometimes doesn't involved practicality for better or worse. I'm not exactly the most fashion forward guy myself but I understand that sometimes how I look is important. People care about how others look and no that isn't always stupid. It's only stupid when one makes harmful decisions based on aesthetics when the important information is not aesthetic. Dressing nicely isn't just for your benefit. If you come to work looking sloppy and like someone who doesn't care then that says something about you to others. If you are trying to attract a romantic partner, how you look tends to matter. You think all the shaving and bathing and other primping both men and women (especially women) do is purely for practical reasons?

Re:Women's clothing

[sjbe]

Public decency laws are not a social pressure.

They most certainly are a social pressure. Why do you think we have such laws in the first place? It's a social pressure codified into law. There is no functional reason to require people to be dressed in public and yet we insist that they are. Why? Social pressure.

That slanderous bitch down the hall is a social pressure.

I sense you have issues you need to work out...

Re:Women's clothing

[Anonymous Coward]

The crux of the problem is that in the end aesthetics are luxuries. Luxuries can be useful, but there's a difference between being functional and optimal. If we put more emphasis on being functional rather than optimal, perhaps adaptation would be an option.

Re:Women's clothing

[kyrsjo]

But they do often carry a (sometimes huge) bag.

Re:Women's clothing

[bws111]

Sorry, but you seem to be the one with no idea how society works. Suppose you work in an office, and there is a girl there, always dressed nicely, who you would like to date. You ask her out, and she says yes. You make reservations at a nice restaurant. Are you going to dress nicely for your date, or are you going to wear an old tee shirt and worn out jeans? Gasp! You have just caved in to societal pressure!

Womens clothes don't have pockets because most people do not consider it attractive for a woman to have bulges of keys, phone, wallet, etc in their clothes, and most women want to appear attractive. Any woman can, of course, have pockets but nobody is required to find that attractive. Therefore, some woman deciding 'I care more about having pockets than appearing attractive' is not magically going to make the rest of society find it attractive.

Re:Women's clothing

[sandytaru]

Actually, I'm a married woman wearing a pair of pants that have no pockets right now, and I'm annoyed because I thought they did when I bought them. (They even have fake silky hanging things on the inside - I usually feel around on the inside of pants before I buy them to see if the pockets are fake or real, and the presence of lining material behind them usually indicates they're real but sewn shut for display purposes. Nope! Not this pair. The material is a single layer thick. I don't know why they even bothered. I couldn't even take them back because I took them straight to get shortened after I bought them. Thankfully, the other pairs I bought that day did have real pockets.)

In this particular case, the "aesthetic" appearance of pants that have pocket outlines but not pockets is dumb. Plain and simple. Either have real pockets, or don't even try to pretend and have the front panel of the pants be smooth.

Re:Women's clothing

[bws111]

Say what? Aesthetics are a very important part of sexual attraction, which, evolutionarily speaking, is about as functional as you can get.

Re:Women's clothing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Really? You do whatever you want regardless of the social consequences? (If you answer yes to that then you are either in jail or a liar)"

Ridiculous. All kinds of people do whatever they want to do regardless of the social consequences - theyre called "adults". "Adults" worry about things that are real - material consequences. Social consequences are irrelevant.

Re:Women's clothing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are you going to dress nicely for your date, or are you going to wear an old tee shirt and worn out jeans? Gasp! You have just caved in to societal pressure!"

Trying to impress someone you are sexually interested in is biological - whether with fancy clothes or a nice hut or the amount of coconuts you posses - it has nothing to do with "social pressure" you dumbshit.

No one - or at least no adult - dresses to impress the other people in the room when out on a date. Their purpose is to impress the person theyre on a date with - and if that means upsetting or pissing off the other people in the room, then so be it.

Re:Women's clothing

[khallow]

No one - or at least no adult - dresses to impress the other people in the room when out on a date.

I guess then the problem is that there are a lot of non-adults in today's societies. You need to incorporate those into your model.

Re:Women's clothing

[bws111]

Oh, it's biological, is it? OK, exactly which gene is it that says 'coat and tie good, tee shirt bad'?

What, exactly, do you think it is that determines whether she thinks you are impressive or not? She is using the measure of societal norms, and nothing else, to determine that. You are using your knowledge of societal norms to try meet her expectations. And, in case you are unable to realize it, trying to meet societal norms is the very definition of societal pressure.

Re:Women's clothing

[bws111]

Uh, no. The people you are describing are children, not adults. An adult who does not modify his behavior based on societal expectations has some serious problems. For instance, a small child would have no problem walking up to a total stranger and saying "you're fat". A normal adult would never do that, because society says such behavior is unacceptable.

Re:Women's clothing

[William Baric]

It's not because they bend to peer pressure, it's because they are competing.

Re:Women's clothing

[bluefoxlucid]

I used to think that way. Then I rejected the idea. That's called growing up, and it's what most people don't do.

Society puts all kinds of funny pressure on people. A lot of things are flat wrong, and I have tended to tell people this. Look at stock advice and idioms: don't look a gift horse in the mouth, don't judge a book by its cover, don't make assumptions. Yet people give away shit that's broken and you wind up paying more to fix it or dispose of it than you would to replace it. You can't read all books; you have to make some surface judgments, and for example how do you optimally decide who to talk to at a party or a bar aside from their surface attractiveness (behavioral, physical, etc.)? And of course all human behavior relies on assumptions, else when someone tells you the sky is yellow you'd have to go outside and check if that's changed recently rather than assuming it's still blue and/or you haven't slipped into an alternate reality or suffered a mental disorder that's altered your memories.

Society has told me that we must either provide high amounts of welfare or that we should cut taxes; I've decided a basic income is simpler and better, striking a balance where we don't rob the rich (92% taxes!) but rather where we set a flat income tax that covers the basic income, such that total income (affected by inflation) adjusts the basic income independent of whether the middle class is shrinking (the rich are taking all the fucking money) or growing (the workers are making headway against their masters). Society also avoids pain, and prefers to take a continuous slide into failure rather than inflict short-term suffering for long-term prosperity; I find this wrong, and would rather sacrifice the life, health, and prosperity of several million for the next few years to avoid billions of lives over the next decades being cast into ruin, as it is not virtuous to bring everyone down so that those who will fail have a few more fleeting moments to hang on.

Societal pressure tells me I should fight for stronger post-secondary education guarantees, making society pay to educate the masses with college. Everyone believes this. Everyone is wrong. The general availability of vocational education shifts costs and risks away from businesses and onto individuals; businesses then have a large crop of prepared individuals to choose from, and can give restrictive salaries. Without this availability--without government loan programs taking the risk off banks, without government-funded colleges or free public university access--businesses would have a shortage of prepared skilled workers, and would have to provide vocational training to entrants in order to build a workforce. The first model disadvantages the poor and supports the rich; the second model doesn't much disadvantage the rich or the businesses (separate groups), but gives the poor great upward mobility by the application of hard work and ambition.

Societal expectations tell us to do stupid things that are harmful to us. People defend these expectations with incomplete or inaccurate knowledge, but hold to it because they don't want to become an outcast in society for being right.

Re:Women's clothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Just shut up dude.

Maybe if women didn't bend to those social pressures they'd no be pressures anymore.
   

This is still true. If women just got clothes with pockets and didn't care about today's idea of fashion, things would change over time.

Re:Women's clothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Change who I am to impress someone else? I guess you have lots of "dates" because doing crap like that is for high schoolers who don't have an interest in long term relationships. If you're going out of your way to impress someone and you expect that to last then you're going to sell yourself short every time.
 
Sorry if that truth burns your ass.
 
To be 100% honest, if I had to "dress up" for an event tonight I'd be SOL because I don't even own "dress up" clothes.

They don't do anything important

[asylumx]

The reason they don't take of is because they are niche. Fitbits only track fitness info. They don't do anything else. As much as we like to believe fitness is a necessity, it's not the #1 priority in most peoples lives so they are easy to forget to wear, and once you forget them for a day or two, you've lost the momentum and it's actually harder to get yourself to start caring again. Similar thing with the smart watch -- it can do a couple of things, but it's not really any more convenient for those things than the smartphone that you still have to have in your pocket anyway, and it can't do any of the other cool stuff the smartphone does. It doesn't have a chance until it can completely replace the smartphone, and even then it isn't a sure thing.

Re:They don't do anything important

[asylumx]

The reason they don't take off is because they are niche.

My proof-reader is fired.

Re:They don't do anything important

[jittles]

The reason they don't take off is because they are niche.

My proof-reader is fired.

What sort of severance package do I get?

Re:They don't do anything important

[sandytaru]

They're also really bad at what they claim to do. They don't work any better than pedometers. They claim to "capture any movement you do" but they are notoriously bad at picking up stationary exercise on equipment. I am probably going to cancel mine because it can't tell that I'm jogging on a treadmill. Oh sure, it picks up jogging on the road just fine, but it thinks that I am just jumping slightly in place when I walk or job on a treadmill.

Re:They don't do anything important

[American Patent Guy]

I've got a Fitbit, and I'm going to keep wearing mine. I find it to be pretty impressive. I clip mine to my shirt pocket and off I go. It's got a little wireless USB dongle for syncing to my computer (you just have to come near the computer every few days to get a report by their website) and another USB dongle for charging it (which gets used for about 20 mins every week).

The thing is intelligent enough not to count sporadic movements (e.g. me turning in my office chair), but it will count my short trips to the copier or break room. It will give an estimate of the distance I've walked during the day, the calories I've burned in ordinary activities, and it will tell me the time if I want to push the little button enough times. I don't think I'd use it to give better than a rough estimate of activity, but as far as keeping me above a rough threshold of activity is does a pretty darned good job. At the end of the day it tells me how much of a walk I need to keep up a regular level of activity-- and that's all I need it to do.

Re:They don't do anything important

[asylumx]

What sort of severance package do I get?

More fired. This isn't wall street!

Re:They don't do anything important

[jittles]

What sort of severance package do I get?

More fired. This isn't wall street!

Your benefits package sucks. I quit.

Re:They don't do anything important

[asylumx]

Either way, I'm going to need you to come in on Saturday.

Summary

[jaseuk]

I've got drawers full of returned windows mobiles and early smartphones. Blackberries and iPhones were of course very different, but early smart phone sales definitely were returned or misused a lot. I can see wearable being exactly the same way!

Jason

Re:Summary

[N1AK]

This is a fair point. Blackberry's were not the first smartphones, there was an extensive period of clunky win phone devices etc before this that were much harder to use and less convenient. I'm not sure that smart watches will follow the same path but it's pointless using smartphones as evidence they will fail.

Re:Summary

[mrchaotica]

there was an extensive period of clunky win phone devices etc before this...

And an extensive period of even clunkier Palms, Symbians, IBM Simons, etc. before that!

Wearable Computing Is Not Safe!

[Anonymous Coward]

I had too many accidents while wearing my Oculus Rift headset. Hard to drive, hard to walk, hard to even type. I had to get rid of it.

Re:Wearable Computing Is Not Safe!

[jones_supa]

Just make it display Google Street View imagery based on your orientation and GPS coordinates.

Re:Wearable Computing Is Not Safe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your advice will get him killed. His mom's basement stairs are not in Google Street View.

Maybe the real problem with wearable devices is

[korbulon]

They're wearing them in the wrong place.

Interesting!

[Anonymous Coward]

But given that 41% of people run with their smartphones

I did not know that there 41% percent of people run with their smartphones! I always thought it was round about 39.8571234124%. Must have been wrong there.

But seriously: is there any source for this claim?
I would not want to run with a big clunky phone.

Re:Interesting!

[tsqr]

But given that 41% of people run with their smartphones

I guess that means that 41% of people who run, carry their smartphones with them. Looking around, I have serious doubts that 41% of people run. In fact, I would guess that 41% of people would have heart attacks if they tried to run, with or without their smartphones.

The second coming of tech-crash

[Taco Cowboy]

The first time the tech bubble bust was during the dot-com bust, back in the late 1990's.

And I am looking at the second wave coming, and this time, it will be worse, much worse.

I started my tech companies in the 1980's and sold most of them before the tech bust of the late 1990's, and I sold them for *HUGE* profits.

Since the mid 1990's I have been an investor, investing in many start-up companies, more or less related to technology.

Throughout these years, especially since 2010, I am seeing the building of another bubble.

It used to be that the technology evolved around PC / Mac. With the desktop (and later laptop) having powerful processors, many tasks that were done in the big irons were transferred to the PC platform.

And with this move, many *MORE* creative endeavors happened, prolonging and enlarging the user base of the PC.

Nowadays PC are in decline. Everyone and their great great grannies are running around with smartphones / tablets, and tech companies, with most of their executives being morons, took the easy path ---

"Hey, everything is shrinking, from PC to Tablets to Smartphone, so why don't we shrink it *SOMEMORE* and make them "WEARABLES" ?"

Yeah, right !

Mr. Steve Jobs is dead. There can only be one Steve Jobs - and without Steve Jobs, the tech scene is running around as if its a headless chicken.

The "wearables" are *NOT* going to be a boom, simply because we are *NOT* robots.

We are *HUMANS* and we do not *NEED* wearables which interrupts with our daily-lives with useless information (such as emails, phone calls, and so on)

Do you know why we use the phone for phone call ?

Because when we, as humans, decide that we do NOT want to be interrupted by phone calls we put the phone aside.

With wearables, you can't.

It *WILL* keep on disturbing you.

Do I hear "shut it down", or "keep it silent mode" ?

Yeah, right.

Just because you do not want to be disturbed, you need to *DISTURB YOURSELF GOING THROUGH THE MOTION OF SHUTTING DOWN THE WEARABLES*

I guess that makes a ton of FUCKING SENSE to those moronic tech execs.

Mark my word, second tech-crash is coming.

Re:The second coming of tech-crash

[nucrash]

The iWatch will be the precedent to decide if Apple is Apple without Steve Jobs. There are many factors to what Steve did which made their products something to be a part of a person's environment. Wearables have to provide a service that people really want. While the submitter and the article mentions about how 50% of the wearable market is sitting on the shelf, people should take note of every other market before Apple entered it.

Anyone remember the Tablet PC in 2003? That thing was a giant pile of steaming crap that people bought into, but barely used.

Smartphones were alright, but passable. I didn't see much of the advantage and waited until the technology matured. Microsoft nearly killed it, Blackberry saved it, and Apple allowed it to flourish.

Anyone remember the first MP3 players? I had one. They were terrible. I didn't see the point of having a 64MB device that was a nightmare to use. Apple introduced the iPod and everyone else followed suit.

People can trash wearable tech all they want, but I am not going to write it off until Apple fails at it. This will prove that the magic of Apple is truly gone, or ... there really is no point to wearable technology.

From what I see of the leaks though, Apple is doing what they do best so far. They are making the technology simple, small, unobtrusive to one's lifestyle. My iPhone to me is the same way. I don't have the device latched to me in such a way that it feels like an anchor. It's either there or not, but if it's around, I want to use it. Some of the wearable tech that I have seen so far appears to be large, clunky, has a terrible battery life and while might have a lot of functionality, requires too much effort to get anything useful out of.

Re:The second coming of tech-crash

[BasilBrush]

The iWatch will be the precedent to decide if Apple is Apple without Steve Jobs.

And of course one of the possibilities is that Apple will chose not to do a watch. Apple is known to reject many more ideas than actually turn into products.

I wish people would stop talking about a rumour as if it were an actual product.

Re:The second coming of tech-crash

[jellomizer]

If we are in a tech bubble, I don't see it as bad as it was in the 1990's.
Today's bubble is focused mostly on Consumer Technology, the 1990's bubble was on Business and Consumer Technology.

For one: Todays tech workers are no treated like Gods like the 1990's. The idea of paying 6 figure salaries for someone to use front page to make a static website. And bringing the Techies to the C table. We have been knocked down a few pegs. As best we are considered Professional Services, at worst we are considered a barely necessary expense.

Second: We are sticking to more traditional business models. Unlike lets sell all of our products at a loss, and we will make it up by doing it in volume. Free services are backed up with Advertisements, which now are very targeted (Google). Other services are either charged via a Monthly Fee subscription (Netflix), or you have to buy individual content (Apple). The 1990's were give it away for free and some investor will give us a boat load of money.

Third: Consumer Tech has consolidated to a few companies (Google, Apple, Facebook) while if one these companies fail it doesn't bring down the whole economy. The other is more then willing to pickup where the other has left off. As well failure is based on a change in demand.

Finally: No Y2K. Y2K was the biggest influence in the bubble. Comapanies and people all rushed to upgrade their systems to be first Y2K complaint. If they have to upgrade, they might as well add the newer networks and other technology as well. You don't have to get an iPad or a Smart Phone, sure a lot of people likes them, but for most places it isn't a key component to the infrastructure.

Re:The second coming of tech-crash

[nucrash]

While we have seen a lot of products that lead us astray, even the worst products had some sort of hint of what was coming.

Steve Jobs would deceive many people about a product through various ways, "People don't read anymore?"

Still, there as been enough momentum inside Apple to indicate that there is some sort of wearable technology coming from Apple. This might be a while yet because Apple will want to get the technology correct.

The original iPad wasn't that great, but the apps that followed made it great. The original iPhone wasn't that great, but the apps that followed made it great. The original iPod wasn't that great, but the music catalog with iTunes that followed made it great. They are all devices that open up a new world and revenue source to Apple.

Nobody doubts the potential of wearable technology. We have seen so much through science fiction as we used to see the PADD back in the star trek days. People have jumped into the market and flailed around. If you study every market that Apple has ever dived into, you would notice the same pattern. They aren't out to capture the market share, they are out to succeed where everyone else fails. If they wanted market share, they would have built the crappiest computer they could and raced to the bottom to get the largest market they could. Instead, they build a respectable machine that performs well. Overpriced? Perhaps, but steaming pile of crap? I don't think so.

Watching Apple in the past, they look like they are ready to pounce on the market.

Re:The second coming of tech-crash

[cusco]

Apple is doing what they do best

Marketing?

Re:The second coming of tech-crash

[BasilBrush]

How many times have we been told that there is going to be an Apple TV? Not just the set-top box of that name, but a thing with an actual screen.

How many times have we been told that Apple were going to release a games console?

As to the point that Apple enter markets where others have failed. Well that's true sometimes, but it's not a rule. Sure, the iPod and iPad fit that description. But the iPhone and the Mac don't.

There's certainly been some solid information that they are working on health monitoring. And some lesser information that they are working on wearables. But these things may not result in a product that they think worthy of bringing to market. And even if it does it may not be a watch.

Lets just stop talking about "the iWatch" as if this is a real product. It's nothing more than a rumour.

Re:The second coming of tech-crash

[Anonymous Coward]

I love selective history too. I'm sure everything you described about the past happened exactly as you say without missing nuance or context.

Re:The second coming of tech-crash

[antdude]

I want a stand alone smartwatch to replace my old school Casio Data Bank 150 watch. I don't want to use a mobile phone for it.

My Wearable Device Ditched Me

[Vic Metcalfe]

I really liked my fitbit, but it somehow came off while I was camping and I never bothered replacing it.

Now I just use Endomondo to track activities I'm really interested in tracking from my phone. I'm very interested in the newer more energy efficient technologies being introduced to phones for tracking activity since I've almost always got mine on me anyway.

Not useful enough yet

[slfnflctd]

These things are a joke. Their shortcomings are much like those of consumer robotics-- not enough sensors, not enough automation, dumb software and finicky interfaces. Until I can slap one on my body with minimal to no manual configuration and get accurate, reliable data complemented by accurate, reliable, non-obvious analysis (plus an easy way to get it all in tabular form for my own uses), all they do is add hassle to my life with insufficient justification.

Space constraints

[sjbe]

I cannot imagine anything that I really want a smart watch to do.

Exactly. I don't carry a watch except rarely because it is A) redundant (my phone tells me the time), B) annoying to wear, and C) has limited functionality. The only time I really can imaging carrying a watch is for some specific task where I need certain data or sensors but weight or bulk is an issue. For instance when I'm jogging or doing some other athletic activity where a smartphone is too bulky to carry.

Re:Space constraints

[meta-monkey]

Yeah, that's the thing. I could see wearing a fitness tracker...when I'm exercising. But not all day. It's just going to tell me that I sit at a desk.

Also, I do wear a watch, partly to tell time, but also as jewelry. It's the only jewelry a guy can really wear. I have a moderately expensive Ebel. It looks great, I get compliments on it, and I like looking at it and all shiny and everything. If I were to wear a smartwatch, it would have to look about as good as my Ebel, and I don't see that happening.

Glasses, on the other hand...I wear glasses, and as soon as a production, quality Google Glass-type product is available, I'll snatch one of those up. Motherfuckin cyborg, yo.

Re:Space constraints

[BasilBrush]

As you get older your priorities may well change. Playing at being a cyborg might become less interesting, and the reality of not being immortal, and possible chronic health conditions may make health monitoring products more attractive.

There are many sorts of people that make a market, and we all change what sort of people we are as we age.

Re:Space constraints

[sjbe]

As you get older your priorities may well change.

Probably but I doubt I'll ever wear a watch. I'm just not that obsessed with time or showing off to justify the annoyance of wearing a watch if I don't really need to. I have one but I only really wear it when I'm hiking in rural areas or doing a competitive run. I don't object to wearing a health monitor should there be a need but in most cases I figure my cell phone (which I already carry) could probably do the job adequately for quite a few use cases. I'd be more interested in something like a fitbit if it would work closely with my cell phone so that I only had to carry one or the other. I don't want to carry a bat-belt worth of gear without a damn good reason.

Fitness trackers almost useless unless ...

[Anonymous Coward]

they are paired with a heart rate monitor. In the gym, there are so many exercises that your basic fitness tracker just doesn't grok. Rowing, weight lifting, biking - any thing where your arms aren't moving in a pattern that can be linked to stride.

However, if you have a fitness band that can pair with a heart rate monitor, they are actually pretty convenient. Small, unobtrusive and, depending on brand, waterproof and nearly indestructible.

Citationless assertion

[aywwts4]

"You wouldn't find people from the early days of the smartphone saying that they'd abandoned their BlackBerry, Treo or Windows Mobile or Symbian phone."

I absolutely abandoned my early Palm, I could only afford it because the guy was selling it for a loss after he too abandoned it, it ran through batteries like crazy, had limited utility, and frankly a paper notepad was vastly more useful than "Graffiti" It's a very strange assertion because we don't have the metrics of these early devices, they weren't connected like today, again a testament to their limited utility.

I admit after I tasted early android I never looked back, but today's era of wearable tech is much more comparable to 2002's Treo, sitting in a desk somewhere, likely discharged, clunky input, poor display, lacking utility, and shown to people as a novelty. Give it a few years and a few false starts before we claim it "dead".

Re:Citationless assertion

[Sockatume]

At least with your Palm you understood that you wanted something like that, but better. I don't think there's too many people who feel the same way about smartwatches that aren't the Pebble.

Please tell me tablets are going away too

[Anonymous Coward]

My iPad is gathering dust on a shelf somewhere (I don't know exactly where). In the list of "useless crap I have purchased," it's in the top 50 items along with my pasta maker and those things you strap to the bottom of your shoes to aerate your lawn. I know I'm not the only one. Practically everybody I know with a tablet has said basically the same thing: they're convenient, but not convenient enough to lug around all the time.

2 out of 3

[slashmydots]

Wearable tech died because people realized 2x the batteries to worry about and needless cost doesn't justify a bulky and annoying device attached to you with very little benefit. Netbooks died when people realized you can't type on them very well and can't see the screen. For the exact same reason plus the unbelievably short useable life rating and failure rate, why are tablets still around? They're netbooks with no keyboards.

Re:2 out of 3

[Anonymous Coward]

netbooks were extremely popular when I was in college. turns out a tough small laptop with long battery life was a thing alot of people wanted. This was especially true in comp sci when you wouldn't find a single one of them not running some sort of linux. may not have been comfortable, but when you need to debug a troublesome project for data structures and you were in an hour lull between classes, it made much more sense to use that rather then finding a power socket and setting up a big heavy fullsize laptop (carrying one of these around for 8 hours a day is a pain in the ass), or going back to the dorm to use a desktop. Tablets are useful for a similar principal, though alot less useful then the netbook was.

Re:2 out of 3

[slashmydots]

That's pretty far from reality. Tough? They have a 40% higher failure rate than "budget" level laptops. Also, if the processor takes 3x longer to perform every single task, who cares if the battery lasts 9 hours. I'd rather get my work done in 3 hours on a 3 hour battery. Also, Toshiba C50 laptops are 15.6" and 5.3 pounds and get 6 hours on the battery with a pentium ivy bridge chip.

I love my MOTOACTV

[dunkelfalke]

But I don't wear it, my bike does.

Re:I love my MOTOACTV

[BetaDays]

I love my motoactv too! I wear it as a watch. I really wish they would have made a version 2 of it. Been using it for 2 years now and have lost over 50 pounds with it's help. I could go on and on about it but I don't want to bore anyone. Also I got my wife a fitbit and she loves it.

Battery life?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love my Pebble, which gets flack for limited featureset. It has a good battery life, however, and I knew the featureset was going to be about what it is when I ordered it. It does exactly what I wanted - makes me take my phone out of my pocket less, changes tracks on my music app, and it's also a watch.

I am ready to dump everything

[FudRucker]

since the US Govt wants to take the internet out of ICANN's hands and hand over control of the internet to an international body, plus the NSA has turned everything that has internet connectivity in to their own spy tool, this makes me want to abandon the internet and cancel my ISP account and pull the plug on the cable box to my house, and next just go almost completely off the grid by reducing my utilities to water so i can use the toilet, bathe & shower and do laundry, and the only electronic devices i will have is a battery powered AM/FM/Shortwave radio and an LED lantern

Galaxy Gear

[jeffmflanagan]

It's weird that the article leads with the Galaxy Gear, which is pretty much useless, so there's no surprise that people want to dump them.

The numbers on activity trackers are more interesting. I currently have a Fitbit on one wrist, and a Basis activity tracker on the other while I evaluate each. It seems like the current generation is pretty limited, with the FitBit just tracking motion, and the Basis tracking heartbeat poorly, especially when active, so I can see why people would be dissatisfied. If someone makes a reasonably-sized, reasonably-priced device that tracks movement, heartbeat, O2, and perspiration while active and not, I expect it to be very popular.

I avoided bluetooth for years...

[thevirtualcat]

I avoided bluetooth for years becuase it was unreliable and awkward. The headsets were expensive and uncomfortable. Some didn't work in that they required pairing every time you turned it on. (Both the phone and the device completely forgot about each other.) Buying a corded headset was far cheaper, had far better quality, and was far more comfortable.

But times change, as do needs. Most bluetooth devices now have just enough non-volatile memory to remember what they were last paired with and most bluetooth hosts will quite happily keep a list of every device it's ever pair with. Other than the initial setup (which can still be awkward and annoying) it's quite simple to use now. Hold the button for a few seconds until the light blinks and/or the sound chimes. Now I have a whole host of bluetooth devices. A headset, a car, a smart watch, a pair of headphones and a keyboard.

Wearables are very much in that early adoption phase. Everyone who owns and actively uses one knows this, I should think.

"Why would I want to read a text message from my watch? I've got a perfectly good phone in my pocket."
"Why would I want to check my email from my phone? I've got a perfectly good laptop in my briefcase."
"Why would I want a laptop? I've got a perfectly good computer back at the office/at home."

Re:I avoided bluetooth for years...

[rdnetto]

I avoided bluetooth for years becuase it was unreliable and awkward. The headsets were expensive and uncomfortable. Some didn't work in that they required pairing every time you turned it on. (Both the phone and the device completely forgot about each other.) Buying a corded headset was far cheaper, had far better quality, and was far more comfortable.

But times change, as do needs. Most bluetooth devices now have just enough non-volatile memory to remember what they were last paired with and most bluetooth hosts will quite happily keep a list of every device it's ever pair with. Other than the initial setup (which can still be awkward and annoying) it's quite simple to use now. Hold the button for a few seconds until the light blinks and/or the sound chimes. Now I have a whole host of bluetooth devices.

It's funny you mention this, given that just a few days ago I struggled and eventually gave up on getting my laptop to pair with a Bluetooth ODB adapter that had previously paired with a different laptop. (In the end I gave up, took it apart, and soldered some wires directly to the serial interface inside it, as I had a USB UART adapter on hand).

The problem was that the device kept disconnecting after I connected to it, and there was nothing I could do to convince it otherwise. The more complex a technology is, the harder it is to get the interface right. This goes doubly when you have an embedded system without a second, more powerful interface (compare this to how Linux supplements the GUI with a terminal). Wearable devices take this to an extreme; the interface is more limited than that of a phone, so it's even harder to get right.

Re:I avoided bluetooth for years...

[thevirtualcat]

OBD adapter? As in car diagnostics?

Yeah. The market is flooded with cheap knockoffs, right now. Let me guess. The MAC address is 11:22:33:DD:EE:FF?

It's a problem with a good number of bluetooth devices out there, really. My ODB II reader, my headphones and my keyboard would probably all be a lot better if I was willing to spend more than $20 on them.

Just wait for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no Apple stuff to be copied yet. Once Apple releases the new iWeareable then everybody and their dog will say it's all obvious and start cloning the design.

Well, yes.

[Veranix]

The trouble with devices that claim to track your steps is they're so easily hoaxed by waving your arms around.

No kidding. My girlfriend is Italian. Every time she has a conversation, her FitBit records her running a marathon.

Most Americans ditch most of the stuff they buy

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Americans ditch most of the stuff they buy. It's a throw away society. Look at your closet, your old hardware box, your Software, Look at the reason you're leaving FB to go to instagram, old "Friends" you're sick of seeing pictures of their now domestic lives.

Split the difference

[drummerboybac]

Or, you could use a pebble that syncs to your smartphone app, which gives you the benefit of not trying to awkwardly look at your arm or try to pull a smartphone out while running.

Why does it need to replace the smartphone

[drummerboybac]

Its best use is as more of a second display with the phone as the engine.

Re:Why does it need to replace the smartphone

[asylumx]

I'm pretty sure I answered this question in my post...

it's not really any more convenient for those things than the smartphone that you still have to have in your pocket anyway, and it can't do any of the other cool stuff the smartphone does

Arguably, having the thing attached to your wrist makes some functions *less* convenient than holding your smartphone in your hand. I'm not arguing against the fact that these devices exist on the market, but the expectations for their uptake should be much lower, and we shouldn't be surprised when they are more of a fad than a disruptive tech.

Re: Exercise

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe part of the problem, in particular with the fitness wearables, is that people in general think they are going to get fit ... and then don't. What about all of those un-used gym memberships that are out there? It's the same thing.

Sony Walkman

[Meyaht]

What did the original Walkman replace? Seems like they came up with something new and convinced people they needed it.

Re:Sony Walkman

[Primate Pete]

Hand-held transistor radios. They were the new hot thing in the 60s-70s. Usually poor or spotty reception, but they were small enough to be hand held and were typically powered by 1-2 AA or 9v batteries. They provided the first way for people to take music with them when they were walking around.

Re:Sony Walkman

[xigxag]

Before that, people had pocket transistor radios, or carried around a larger cassette player (or a even a boom box). There was apparently an unreleased invention called the Stereobelt which predated the Walkman but was unable to secure funding, and something called the Bone Fone which came out around the same time as the Walkman, but which was not successful. But overall, agreed, the Walkman was a revolutionary product.

The problem of solutions looking for problems

[erroneus]

These gadgets seem to fall into two categories:

1. A problem looking for a solution
2. A solution looking for a problem

One has a future and some value while the other does not.

(This comment is best read in the voice of Agent Smith.)

Re:The problem of solutions looking for problems

[Primate Pete]

Actually, both approaches can succeed. consider: (1) most incremental product improvements [e.g., an improvement in fuel efficiency between model years in cars] answer a known need, but (2) nobody knew they needed a diamond engagement ring until DeBeers told them so.

Re:The problem of solutions looking for problems

[BasilBrush]

"Renaissance
"The first well-documented use of a diamond ring to signify engagement was by the Archduke Maximilian of Austria in imperial court of Vienna in 1477, upon his betrothal to Mary of Burgundy. This then influenced those of higher social class and of significant wealth to give diamond rings to their loved ones."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

"De Beers... was founded in 1888"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Re:The problem of solutions looking for problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of these will end up merging with other technologies.

And some of these are products people buy and tend to stop using.

The Fitbit line is a great example of this - not only is it threatened by smartphones with some comparable capabilities, but it's also a device that people tend to buy when they want to lose weight or exercise more - both activities that people tend to give up on.

It's early days yet.

[aussersterne]

There were a whole bunch of smartphones before the iPhone. Anyone remember them? I stumbled across my old Palm Centro the other day, which replaced a Treo 680. These devices were useful to some (I was one of them), but the cost/benefit calculation was finicky, and they didn't find widespread adoption.

Pop consensus was that smartphones were a niche market. Then, someone got one right (iPhone) and the whole industry took off. These days, people don't even realize they're using a "smartphone" (I can remember the early press using the term "supersmartphone") because it's just "my phone."

The same trajectory outlines the computing era in general—from 8-bit boxes that were fiddly and full of cables and user manuals and coding to the Windows era during the '90s—at first, it was a geek thing, and lots of people got in and then got out, deciding it wasn't useful. Then, suddenly, a few UX tweaks and it was ubiquitous and transparent and a market we couldn't imagine the world being without.

I suspect the same will happen with wearable tech.

Apple without Steve Jobs

[Taco Cowboy]

Before the death of Mr. Steve Jobs, Apple Inc had, for some time, running without Mr. Jobs.

And their product ? Apple Newton.

Remember the "newtons" ?

What I am looking forward to - the new offerings from Apple Inc. sans Steve Jobs - are Apple Newtons, version 2.0

And I am not being sarcastic nor joking.

I Forgot My Phone

[mrflash818]

Hopefully people will use them only when face-to-face isn't available.

I Forgot My Phone
http://youtu.be/OINa46HeWg8

Only the best wearable devices stay popular..

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

Oh wait, I thought they said Sybian.

Re:Only the best wearable devices stay popular..

[TripleE78]

Every time I read about Symbian I have that problem.

I clearly need help..

Not all devices are ready for the real world

[Turmoyl]

I tried out the Jawbone UP band in its first generation, and it was a disaster. The smartphone apps that were designed for it were severely lacking; for example, food items had to be (slowly) downloaded for every meal you wanted to input. My first band stopped syncing after 10 days, and two resets did not fix it. Jawbone sent me a replacement band, but it was the wrong size. They finally got me the correct band, but it would not sync at all.

As if that wasn't enough to trash the whole experience, the online seller I had initially purchased the UP from would not process my refund. This was due to me previously following Jawbone's instructions upon the first RMA return, meaning that I had already sent them the original packaging, etc. it turns out that they won't accept returns from their channel partners without the packaging, so this put my seller in a pickle. After several emails and phone calls I was not able to straighten any of this out, and ended up charging the purchase back via my credit card issuer. I know that stuffed the seller, but I feel that the issue lies purely between him and Jawbone, so I will let them figure out it.

When this is someone's first experience with wearables it is not hard to understand why their adoption and usage rates are low right now. I will not get into another wearable until both the manufacturers and their products mature.

It's really surprising to me!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was expecting a percentage very close to 100.

Tricky Tricky

[kelemvor4]

The trouble with devices that claim to track your steps is they're so easily hoaxed by waving your arms around.

Several of my co-workers do the "fit bit" thing, and have a group. I've seen several of them attach the fitbit to a necklace and hang it from the rear view mirror in a car. They record lots of steps when you're driving around - especially when you've stopped at a red light and it's swinging like mad.

Re:Tricky Tricky

[kelemvor4]

Damnit, I forgot the other point I was going to make.

Useful new technology has to replace or simplify some function, ideally; otherwise it has the challenge of persuading us that we need this entirely new thing.

These devices do replace older devices that do the exact same thing. Pedometers have been around for hundreds of years. What's new is that the things integrate with your cell phone and by extension the web. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Just like fitness equipment in general

[oldelpaso]

I wonder what proportion of people who enthusiastically take up a new form of exercise quit within six months. I'd expect a correlation with fitness tracker use; people who aren't keeping fit any more won't have much use for a fitness tracker. A lot of them are probably sitting in the same cupboard as a hardly-used squash racquet or some near-pristine running shoes.

If it's in the Guardian

[gelfling]

Then they're talking about some vast dark Zionist capitalist plot bent on supernal and global domination of everything.

Usefullness vs. charging hassle

[Rob Y.]

The problem with wearables is that they are by definition battery dependent. And if they're not low-powered enough to run for years on a battery like a traditional watch is, then the issue is going to be how useful are they vs. how much of a pain is it to remember to plug it in every day.

I have two 7" Android tablets, and I never use either of them. Sure, for some of the stuff they can do, they do it better than my Android phone. But the phone is the thing that goes on the charger every night. And for all the niceness of the bigger screen, I can't be bothered to keep the tablets charged. There's also the issue of the tablets not supporting separate user accounts, so where they might be useful as a household device for reading email, etc, I won't put my email account on it without separate lockscreen passwords. I suppose I could buy yet another tablet to get one that runs Jelly Bean, with multi-user accounts - but seriously... I'd upgrade the current ones in a minute, but the OEM won't provide an upgrade or allow it to be unlocked so I can install Cyanogenmod. So, I'll never buy another on some faith that that one would actually be used. I suppose iPad fans might chime in with how much use they get out of their pads, but I see all of the same problems there - except the upgrades, but iPads aren't multiuser either.

So, essentially, the only thing I ever used my tablets for was to watch Netflix streams - and then I got a Bluray player with Netflix built in. Netflix has moved to the TV - Big screen, no charging. I suppose I might charge a tablet up to take on a trip for reading the NYTimes online, but seriously...

Re:Usefullness vs. charging hassle

[L4t3r4lu5]

. I'd upgrade the current ones in a minute, but the OEM won't provide an upgrade or allow it to be unlocked so I can install Cyanogenmod.

Who is the OEM? If I'm talking to a luddite I'll say "Get whatever you want" or "Get an iPad". For us? Nexus, all the way. No tie in, updates straight from the source, and root / unlock allowed by default. I won't touch another Android devices from other vendors.

Re:Usefullness vs. charging hassle

[uninformedLuddite]

If I'm talking to a luddite I'll say "Get whatever you want" or "Get an iPad".

Here's your chance.

fitness tracker dropped - smartwatch indispensable

[Anonymous Coward]

While the last part is slight hyperbole (I could live just fine without my smartwatch,) it is a game changer to me.

The ability to leave my phone in my pocket, and see what that buzz, beep, or ring meant without disturbing those around me has been a great enhancement. Sadly, I have been a slave to my phone for work of late, and it makes dinners out with my wife annoying (to her.) "I know you're on call, but it's distracting when you glance at your phone every two minutes." The smartwatch fixed that. Now instead of picking up a big glowing screen and tapping it a few times, I just discreetely glance at my wrist for a moment. The phone silenced, with vibration off, and in my pocket, I get a slight vibration on my wrist (that isn't audible like a phone vibrating,) and I can just look down to see if it's something I need to deal with right then. (Thankfully, MOST of what comes through I DON'T need to deal with right away.)

I don't need a Dick Tracy watch. I don't need a camera, or even a speakerphone, on my watch. All I need is simple notifications. Which my watch does perfectly. Any more, and it just becomes a small unwieldy phone, with all the disadvantages. Yes, I use an iPhone. But even if Apple comes out with the rumored iWatch, if it's just an iOS clone of the Samsung Galaxy Gear, I'm not interested. eInk and simple notifications is perfect. (As is long battery life.)

What to compare them to?

[mhkohne]

I'm not sure that comparing a FitBit to other wearables (like a smartwatch) is fair. I think learn more by comparing it to other exercise equipment - you know, like that treadmill you use for a coat rack in the spare room.

I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

How does a scooter crush your fingers?

SciAm magazines

[justthinkit]

I went through a phase where I would read a Scientific American magazine in bed. Put me right to sleep. But obviously not because it stopped me thinking.

I don't agree with your premise. For one thing, it would depend on what the podcast you are listening to is about.

Re:SciAm magazines

[BasilBrush]

It's not possible for you to disagree with my premise and be right, since I was explicitly talking about what they do for me, not you.