Slashdot Mirror


Wearables Still Slow To Catch On in the United States (axios.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The use of wearable technology devices -- like watches, glasses and fitness tracking bracelets -- will grow 11.9 percent next year, eMarketer predicts, with the growth rate continuing to slow compared to previous years. Smartwatches will drive the bulk of wearables growth, but the number of people who use wearable technology will still be less than 20 percent of the population. Experts suggest wearable adoption will slow due to cost and unmet user expectations. Still, others, like analyst firm IDC, predict that U.S. wearable use will continue to climb, doubling in size by devices shipped 2021, just at a slower pace.

3 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Problemless Solutions by lq_x_pl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most consumer-oriented 'innovation' these days revolves around generating a solution prior to identifying a problem. The software-startup market is plagued by this, but for some reason, our collective bullshit meter is turned off when evaluating the usefulness of software. Every time you turn around, there's another "Tinder for [x]" or "Uber for [y]" being touted as the latest and greatest.
    We seem to respond differently to something tangible, though. Adoption is slow because most of us recognize that the current offerings of 'wearables' don't pose a significant enough improvement in our lives to justify purchasing them.

    --
    An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
  2. Why wearables don't sell by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Smartwatches will drive the bulk of wearables growth, but the number of people who use wearable technology will still be less than 20 percent of the population. Experts suggest wearable adoption will slow due to cost and unmet user expectations.

    It's not about the cost. It's about the fact that they don't solve any problems for most of the people that might consider buying them. Until someone cracks the code on devices that actually do something that smartphones cannot they aren't going to see widespread adoption. There also is the fact that most of them cannot be used as fashion accessories outside of certain very geeky circles.

    Look, I should be the ideal demographic for a wearable. I exercise, I love gadgets, I have the disposable income to buy such gadgets. But there literally are none out there that solve any real world problems for me. The Apple Watch, Fitbit, and equivalents don't do anything I actually need 99.999% of the time. (plus I don't like wearing a watch) If I don't wear it during exercise (and I typically don't) there literally is zero utility in them for me that my smartphone doesn't already provide. Wearables are basically small sensor suites, sometimes combined with what is basically a fancy pager. Not useless but definitely niche.

  3. Re:The main question is why by vivian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would want to wear a computing device - I just don't want to have another thing to charge each night.

      I even stopped wearing my dive watch (Citizen Promaster Aqualand (with a metal band replacing the horrible rubber one ) because it needed expensive battery replacements which cost $50 for battery change and predssure test every year.

    Now I still have a dive watch, but it's an eco-drive one that has fewer functions (no depth gauge) but has the advantage in that it is solar powered so never needs a battery change.

    If you could build even a low powered computing device that had that feature, it'd be a winner - because it would be handy having even a subset of the features a smartphone has, always available at your wrist. That convenience is negated however, if you have to worry about keeping it charged all the time.