No One Is Buying Smartwatches Anymore (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader shares a Gizmodo report: Remember how smartwatches were supposed to be the next big thing? About that... The market intelligence firm IDC reported on Monday that smartwatch shipments are down 51.6 percent year-over-year for the third quarter of 2016. This is bad news for all smartwatch vendors (except maybe Garmin), but it's especially bad for Apple, which saw shipments drop 71.6 percent, according to the IDC report Apple is still the overall smartwatch market leader, with an estimated 41.3-percent of the market, but IDC estimates it shipped only 1.1 million Apple Watches in Q3 2016, compared with 3.9 million in 2015. To a degree, that's to be expected, since the new Apple Watch Series 2 came out at the tail-end of the quarter. But the news is still a blow, when you consider how huge the Apple Watch hype was just 18 months ago.

Comments

Because their pointless.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are very few use-cases of these which make sense.

Workout accessory? Hardly adds much.

Wireless extension of phone display? Hardly much better than just looking at the damn phone..

Oh - and especially - as a time piece? Size sucks, Durability sucks. Battery life sucks even more making them pointless for most cases where you want a watch (long trips, hiking, camping, etc.).

Failed experiment by electronics makers selling jewellery. They fell into the classic trap of trying to create a market for something which doesn't actually do anything that anyone cares about.

Was Obvious from the Start

[rahvin112]

Anyone that knows anything about watches could have saw this coming. There is a potential here if they can get a watch that does what a watch does now with additional functionality but they've got to get something else right and that's battery life. Watches are JEWELRY first and time pieces second. Most people who don't care for the time keeping abilities don't even wear one anymore because cell phones have clocks now. Apple tried really hard to get the Jewelry side right but IMO failed miserably. This is a fit and finish game with high end precious metals comprising the composition, often with gemstones.

None of the smartwatches satisfy the Jewelry aspect of time pieces. Taking that into consideration and the fact they have atrocious battery life, offer almost no convenience that their phone doesn't already provide and you've got a product that will sell a few as a status thing and rapidly implode as the main market avoids it. There is a future for these things but it's going to be a niche market until they solve the serious limitations in both functionality and battery life.

Re:Was Obvious from the Start

[zlives]

the other issue with watch as jewlery for all smart watches, in my mind, is the software. 10 years from now my Ulysse Nardin will still have value and 20 years it may even appreciate. 30 years from i will give it to my son. 2years from now the iwatch will be out of date and no longer supported.

Re:Was Obvious from the Start

[myowntrueself]

Yup. When the Apple watch came out, I took my Rolex purchased in the 70s to a jeweler for cleaning and refurbishment which cost 2x what an Apple watch would have cost. I gave it to my son as a graduation gift. The current value on that watch was 5x what I paid for it. Might be a wash with changes to the value of a dollar, but that item will still have value in 2-3 years when the Apple watch would have been dropped into a bin as junk. The HP-01 watch from the 70's was a better product than the Apple watch, by the way I also had an HP-01 back then. Kind of sorry I didn't keep it. I wonder if an Apple watch buyer will every feel the same way after 40 years?

Also, when Apple decide they don't care about the Apple watch any more and shut down the servers that enable it to work, it could well stop functioning altogether; many pieces of modern tech are like this. If their servers are offline they just don't work any more. This isn't going to happen with your Rolex.

Re:Was Obvious from the Start

[nine-times]

the Apple Watch 2.0 only really offers waterproofing. no real advances that people would dump another $350+ to replace their 1 year old Apple Watch 1.0

I think this really needs to be taken into account in the whole discussion. The big story is that Apple Watch sales are down from last year?

You have to figure that a large percentage of people who wanted Apple Watches bought them last year, when they were first released. Most people don't usually replace their electronics after only a year. Even with cell phones, they wait 2 or 3 years, and that's about as frequent as it gets. Given that smart watches are mostly being used as watches and to display notifications from your cell phone, it seems possible that the smartwatch upgrade cycle will be less frequent.

Also, the "Series 2" model is ultimately a minor upgrade. It has GPS in the watch, which may be important to some people. It's waterproof and the old one isn't officially waterproof, but was still more water resistant than advertised. It's not thinner or lighter, the battery doesn't last longer, and it doesn't even look different. Some people will want to upgrade after only one year, but I wouldn't expect most Series 1 owners to think it's worth buying a Series 2.

Given that, I would assume that there'd be a big spike of sales when the Apple Watch was first released, followed by a few years of diminishing sales. I even had a theory (which so far has worked out) that Apple would avoid making a lot of small incremental changes every year. Given the novelty of the product, some people probably held off buying it the first year because they wanted to see if the following year's model would show substantial improvements. Now that we've seen only minor improvements for Series 2, that may have lead some of those people to go ahead and buy one, which may explain why their sales aren't even worse.

My basic theory is that Apple has a cycle in mind for how often they'll release major updates with major design changes, and it's basically on the same time frame that their marketing experts tell them that people will be willing to buy a new smart watch. I don't know if that's 2 years or 4 years, but it's not going to be 1 year.

Who needs them anyway

[Keruo]

I stopped wearing a wristwatch 10+ years ago. It was annoying to wear while using a laptop.
There's clock on my phone, computer, car, radio, egg timer.. I don't see the point in carrying extra one on my wrist.
Smartwatches seem even more pointless to me, redundant and limited functionality and horrible battery life.

Article is 95% herp Derp

[Lumpy]

Nobody is UPGRADING their smartwatches because why the hell should I pay $350 to get a watch that has zero features above what I already have? When I had a Pebble Time it did everything I wanted then and the other pebble offerings were useless iterations that either offered a useless feature (lighter and shorter battery).

the Apple Watch 2.0 only really offers waterproofing. no real advances that people would dump another $350+ to replace their 1 year old Apple Watch 1.0

The android watches, well nobody has been buying them, they have always been the last place runners, but their new iterations are all useless. Zero advantages on the new versions.

The ONLY smartwatch maker not with their head up their ass is Pebble. 10 day battery life in the Pebble Time Steel. Apple could have doubled the battery life, Samsung could have doubled battery life.... nope, they are all stuck in the "ZOMG THINNER!" stupidity.

Re:Article is 95% herp Derp

[dbialac]

> Nobody is UPGRADING their smartwatches

You're acting as though this is an item that everyone has. It isn't. It's an item where most people took one look at it and said, "meh". Meanwhile in that same time period, I bought a conventional automatic watch because you never have to wind it and you never have to change the battery. It always works, it's (old) alternative energy and for me that makes it cool. One of the thing we often forget in technology is that sometimes our ancestors already solved the energy problems we're facing today, simply because they didn't have any.

So much hate

[Ghazgkull]

I didn't want one either. So much so that when my wife surprised me with an Apple watch for Christmas last year, I could hardly hide my disappointment. Thinking "I really didn't *want* one of these"...

But having used a smart watch for a while now, I absolutely love it. Why?

1. The haptic feedback. I run my phone on silent 24/7, which meant that I was constantly having to double-check that I didn't miss a message while walking around. There's no missing or mistaking the prominent tap from the watch so this problem is solved. No more missed messages and no more randomly checking my phone.
2. The weather. I wouldn't have predicted this one, but having the current weather conditions plus the day's high/low temps on the watch face is super useful. I probably look at my watch for the weather conditions almost as often as I look at it for the time.
3. The general freedom of not needing my phone in my hand. In lots of small ways throughout the day, a well-functioning smart watch is another one of those "living in the future" joys. Sending messages by voice without even pulling out your phone, pausing/resuming podcasts while mowing the lawn, getting haptic navigation directions while having an uninterrupted conversation... a good smart watch is clearly a step forward.

As a former skeptic turned believer, it's a shame to see so many people dumping on these devices without having the chance to really see what they offer.

Bad data, poor credibility

[plsuh]

Folks, all of this is from numbers pulled out of some IDC analyst's rear end. Their estimates are no better than SWAG's. I should know, I've had to use their reports in a past life. Sometimes they're accurate, as companies will report otherwise confidential numbers so long as they can't be backed out of the reports. However, Apple doesn't play those games and in this case it's explicitly some analyst's best guess. Most analysts badly misunderstand Apple, and when you misunderstand the biggest player in the market your analysis is almost certain to be wrong.

Also, Garmin's growth was from a very low base. It's easy to grow by 300+% if you start from almost zero.

Technology isn't advanced enough yet

[Dan East]

We still don't have the display technology to make a proper smartwatch. Until we have a watch with a display that is continuously on and active (such as a full-color e-ink display that's at least 30 FPS) that can operate for a minimum of 24 hours continuously on one charge, smart watches are going to be a severe compromise from existing watches (digital or analog). Only those that have use cases that really require them, or that want to bend over backwards to integrate them into their lives, will find them useful enough to bother with.

Look at digital watches. The first generation were LED with red glowing numbers, and they only displayed the time when you pushed a button, otherwise the battery would be dead within an hour. Does that sound familiar? Digital watches did not explode onto the scene until LCD displays matured, which were capable of actively displaying real-time data continuously for months on a single battery. That will be the technology that drives smartwatches - whatever display advancements need to take place to allow continuous full-color, real-time data display with a battery life measured in days. Until then, companies like Apple are putting the cart before the horse and using gimmicks like gestures and the like to try and switch the display on intermittently (and hopefully) when the user is needing to see it.

Cant give them away

[ghoul]

I knew the Apple Watch was not going to work out when Apple offered a 50% discount to their employees and my friend who works at Apple offered me to use his discount to get one. If Apple employees are not willing to buy it at 50% why would the public buy it at full price?

Watches are worn as bling

[presidenteloco]

Most people have figured out that they carry their phone all the time so the watch is useless.

Some people think that a big platinum or gold looking one or diamond encrusted one still makes them look successful or alpha, whereas it really just makes them look quaint, narcissistic, and backward.

If you're really important, you have a person to tell you the time without you even having to ask.

Re:Watches are worn as bling

[DrXym]

I wear a watch because I like to be able to tell the time without whipping out a phone for the same purpose. Especially if I'm driving, in a meeting, running or whatever. I can also time myself, set an alarm and a few other things. The screen is always on, it has a nice big display, it's waterproof, the battery has lasted 18 months and I expect I'll get at least another 6-12 months more out of it and it cost me the grand sum of €20.

Watches aren't just for bling, they're there to tell the time. A watch that needs to charge constantly, or needs to be pushed / shaken to show the time, or is hard to read in sunlight is a pain in the ass. That's why "smart" watches fail. They compromise the most basic function that they are supposed to perform. Instead we get shit like wrist cameras, half assed phone sync functionality, heart rate monitors etc. If someone produces a smart watch that tells the time with an always-on display, that works in and out of doors, that lasts weeks or months between charges then we might be getting somewhere. The other stuff is merely a bonus at that point.

Re:Watches are worn as bling

[hey!]

Watch collector/restorer here.

I don't like the huge, fat watch thing either. Nor am I a fan of subdials and other complications for daily wear. And here's the thing: for the most part ostentatiously big, fat, complicated watches are a low-end phenomenon. As you go higher hundreds and then into thousands of dollars, visual complexity shrinks until you are looking at something like a Rolex Milgauss for about $5000. The Migauss is somewhat fatter than I'd prefer because it's very robust -- it's designed for every day use. For dress use, if cost were no object, I'd wear something like a Vacheron Constantin Patrimony, which is 2.6 mm thick and 20.6 mm across. It's small, but the clean design means it doesn't have to be big. For that reason I wouldn't spend the additional $10,000 for the date complication.

Smartphones haven't eliminated the usefulness of wristwatches; they've just eliminated the usefulness of all the gee-gaws on watches for purposes other than telling time. You don't need the day/date complication, and you don't need the stopwatch or countdown timer, that stuff just makes a watch complicated to operate and hard to read. All you need is the hour, minute and second hand. I also make extensive use of a rotating dive-watch bezel for timing things like runs. When I rebuild watches I sometimes replace the face to cover up the day/date complication because it just clutters the design.

That's the problem with watches: it's hard to find a thoughtfully-designed, stripped down watch for under $500. But you can find them. One of my favorite cheap watches is a Casio that costs only $15 on Amazon -- I think of it as a disposable watch. It is very, very cheap in every respect, but it tells time as well as a $5000 Rolex and has similarly clean design. The only changes I'd make would be to improve the lume and remove the day/date complication.

Anyhow, if you showed up wearing a Patrimony I'd be impressed -- not because you spent $12,000 on a watch, but that you'd spent $12,000 on a watch whose value only a serious connoisseur would recognize. If you want to impress the ignorant, go big. If you want to impress the sophisticated, go simple.

Re:People probably realized..

[Pseudonym]

they already have a phone...or a watch.

And smart wristwatches have no hipster cred value. Smart pocketwatches... now you're talking.

Re:Because you look dumb wearing it

[Bing Tsher E]

We here at Slashdot are the nerds you picked on in High School.

Shouldn't you be on 4Chan or somewhere like that?

Re:People probably realized..

[Sique]

The original target market for wrist watches were pilots and racing drivers who couldn't afford to get the hands off the steering to pull out a watch and look at the time. That's why expensive watches still have names like "sky master" or "pilote". I stopped wearing a watch about 15 years ago when I was on-call and had to carry a cell phone with me all the time.