Slashdot Mirror


People Still Aren't Buying Smartwatches -- and It's Only Going To Get Worse (businessinsider.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Wearable technology still isn't catching up. Despite a year full of exciting new smartwatches, tech-enabled clothing or jewelry, and fitness activity trackers galore, the growth of the wearables market is still on the decline, according to a new report from research firm eMarketer. In fact, the entire category is being overtaken by smart speakers, at least during the 2017 holiday season. "Other than early adopters, consumers have yet to find a reason to justify the cost of a smartwatch, which can sometimes cost as much as a smartphone," eMarketer forecasting analyst Cindy Liu wrote in the report. "Instead, for this holiday season, we expect smart speakers to be the gift of choice for many tech enthusiasts, because of their lower price points."

26 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe it's because... by skam240 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe it's because I don't want an accessory on my wrist that offers almost no advantages over the cell in my pocket, meanwhile costing the same as a nice watch but looking like an 80's calculator wrist watch.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Maybe it's because... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If smart watches actually did look like 80s calculator wrist watches, I might actually get one!

      Instead I just wear my 80s style Casio G-Shock. Because it's dorky-retro and I love that.

    2. Re:Maybe it's because... by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe it's because I don't want an accessory on my wrist that offers almost no advantages over the cell in my pocket, meanwhile costing the same as a nice watch but looking like an 80's calculator wrist watch.

      And something that is only in style for about 6 months... I have a Tag from 2001. I have a Rolex from 1966. A 4 year old iWatch is trash... Not a good investment or accessory.

    3. Re:Maybe it's because... by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A couple of coworkers have them. The screens are so small as to be nearly useless. The prolific texter frequently gets frustrated and gets his phone out because he can't reply on the watch with any accuracy. Without good interactivity they do not appear to be any more useful than as a timekeeping device. I suppose if one reads a lot of RSS feeds or twitter feeds or the like it could be a more convenient way to keep current, but when I'm at work I'm supposed to be working so I shouldn't make it even easier to get off-task.

      We're at a weird crossroads with technology. We pushed for faster and higher resolution for a very long time, and now that often is at-odds with portability. I'm typing this on a very upoptioned XPS 13 with the 3200x1800 display and honestly this computer has moved a little too far in the direction of screen resolution, without scaling it's unusably high-res, and its battery life is OK but isn't astounding (admittedly with Linux). Not sure exactly what the resolution on these watches is, but on something that's one or two square inches anything over good old fashioned VGA is probably unusable, but most applications are designed for higher res than that even for smartphones. Not sure how they're supposed to overcome that for watches.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:Maybe it's because... by skam240 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a watch given to me by my grandmother from a grandfather I never knew. It's "only" gold plated and "only" has a plastic face rather than crystal but it's one of my most precious things. Why would anyone want an old smartwatch, regardless of who owned it?

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    5. Re:Maybe it's because... by ctilsie242 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It isn't like self-winding watch technology is new. For a C-note or two, I can buy a Bulova self-winder.

      We have all the parts of the technology here:

      1: Self-winding mechanisms.
      2: Very low power ASICs.
      3: e-Ink screens that are available in a watch form factor.
      4: Batteries or capacitors that can hold electricity.
      5: Flexible solar panels for the watchband.
      6: Low power Bluetooth.

      We can take any/all of these and make a self-winding smartwatch that never needs physical charging. No, it may not have OLED or 3D graphics... but it would have enough CPU, RAM, and storage to do basic functions like medical device data, pedometer, and what one expects from a Fitbit type unit.

      Even then, finding a smartwatch that looks elegant and stylish is a problem. The Apple Watch does appeal to a certain demographic, but there are many others who will shell out $1000 for a timepiece because it will work the same as it did when it came out of the box, 50-100 years from now. This is the market smartwatch makers need to consider going after to expand.

    6. Re:Maybe it's because... by Demena · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't see a killer application for the smartwatch.

      I bought mine (an Apple series 3) pretty much for retail therapy (being stupid is ok, if you are aware of and compensate for it) and there may be no killer app. But there is a lifesaving one. My watch woke me up when I was running a high fever (heartbeat too high). Doctor told me that if I had not called an ambulance when I did I would have not made it through the night. So, there may be no killer app but there is certainly one that saved my life.

    7. Re:Maybe it's because... by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Informative

      I had a fitbit for a few months. The heart rate monitor was a piece of crap. Sometimes it didn't work at all, and when it did display a number, it was often wrong. After a few months, the band started to come apart, and I threw it away.

    8. Re:Maybe it's because... by Nexion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "And something that is only in style for about 6 months... I have a Tag from 2001. I have a Rolex from 1966. A 4 year old iWatch is trash... Not a good investment or accessory."

      As someone who is wearing the latest watch from apple I would trade it with this gentleman for his Tag in a heartbeat. I have this watch knowing full well it will be shit in 2 years. The next watch I buy is a Tag or something that has old school gears in it. There is something timeless about a device built to precision that is nothing more than metal gears synchronized to perfection.

    9. Re: Maybe it's because... by sonamchauhan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, the build quality, of course. The low-capacity (and slightly-swollen) battery, PCB with tin whiskers, chipped bezel, unresponsive OS, temperamental Bluetooth, 'retired' cloud service, flaky sensors, compatibility issues with your hardware devices, tatty plastic band... All these add a degree of authenticity.

    10. Re:Maybe it's because... by Lord+Crc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I got a Garmin vivosmart 3, and it's just that. Unobtrusive, a week worth of battery life, shows the time/date and notifications. It supports notifications from most apps, not just calls and texts.

      Haven't had it more than a few months so can't say how durable it is, but been quite pleased with it so far. Price is also a lot more reasonable than a "proper" smart watch.

    11. Re:Maybe it's because... by _merlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A wristwatch is still more practical than pulling your phone out in a lot of situations. Diving, cycling, surfing, even running. It's a lot easier and safer to glance at your wrist than to pull a phone out, and in some cases the phone wouldn't survive the activity at all.

    12. Re: Maybe it's because... by dhaen · · Score: 3, Funny

      I understand and have no reason to disbelieve all you've written, the smartwatch saved your life! However I think you'll find a better (and ancient) solution is to get a wife or husband, who will sleep with you. They're far more expensive than a smart watch but they have many additional benefits.

  2. Bring back the Pebble, damnit. by damnbunni · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Pebble hit it right - it did just enough, and the battery lasted a long time on a charge.

    None of the crap the fancier watches do is worth having to charge them so frequently.

    1. Re:Bring back the Pebble, damnit. by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Pebble hit it right - it did just enough, and the battery lasted a long time on a charge.

      Most of us are used to watches that last years on a battery charge if they use batteries.
      And you can tell the time with a glance, without touching it. That's why wrist watches won over pocket watches, and if you can't bring that level of convenience with a new product, it won't win either.

      Once I get a clock that displays on the inside of my eyelid, I may consider getting rid of my wrist watches. But until then, that's what I'll use for the sheer convenience and dependability, neither of which Smartwatches have.

  3. Apple Watch en route to set sales record in 2018 by JoeyRox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Based on supplier-estimates, so perhaps not the most precise way to measure potential sales:

    https://www.phonearena.com/news/Going-strong-the-Apple-Watch-is-en-route-to-set-another-sales-record-in-2018_id100638

  4. No thanks... by erp_consultant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've got enough distractions without another one on my wrist. One that I have to charge up every day. One that doesn't do much without the phone that it is paired with. I like watches - real watches with automatic movements. Little mechanical works of art. Not some stupid little redundant blue tooth toy.

  5. Not surprised. by YukariHirai · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To me, wearing a watch at all was always uncomfortable and troublesome, and barely worth the effort just for being able to have a timepiece handy. Upon getting a mobile phone which told the time, I happily gave up wearing a watch. In smartwatches, I see much the same thing as the old-fashioned kind: it's an inconvenient thing strapped to the wrist that doesn't do anything that the phone more conveniently out of the way but still easily accessible in my pocket does.

    There are arguments to be made regarding ease/convenience of contactless payment - ie not even needing to get the phone out of one's pocket, but I find that offset by needing to twist the back of the wrist around to meet the EFTPOS terminal. Something that would allow just waving the palm of the hand at the terminal would be better in that regard, but more troublesome in others - needing to wear some kind of glove with a chip located where it would be uncomfortable when doing just about anything else with one's hands. The potential answer to that might be implanting the chip, but that presents its own issues.

    And smartwatches are the most promising - or maybe least unpromising - of the bunch. Smart glasses with augmented reality functionality have a decent amount of potential, but there is a lot wrong with them from a general privacy point of view, and even the early adopting nerds and geeks aren't about to be told that we should abandon the idea of privacy, never mind society at large. Fitness tracking devices are a nice idea in theory, but so far have tended not to actually make things better. And no other form of wearable technology really has any advantage over a smartphone in your pocket.

    1. Re:Not surprised. by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      Watch geek here.

      The big problem with cheap watch comfort is the terrible bands they ship with. Upgrading the band will always fix this, unless you have something really strange going on with the watch head (e.g. like one dive watch head which, when I weighed, it tipped the scales at over 220 grams -- half a pound!).

      Cheap resin bands don't breathe and cut into your wrist, although they can be surprisingly comfortable when you use it with very, very light watch head. Classic el-cheapo Casios come to mind. If the watch weighs nothing, then it's easy to make it comfortable.

      Many people like silicone bands, and they're quite comfortable when you first put them on, but they cause skin irritation or even rashes if they aren't regularly removed and carefully cleaned. Therefore I don't recommend them.

      Metal bands vary from fiendishly uncomfortable to almost perfect. The very worst are the old school "twist-o-flex" bands -- those are almost sadistic. Otherwise, the more flexibly a metal band wraps around a tight curve the more comfortable. Some of Seiko's dive watch bands are outstanding, but probably the ultimate cheap band for comfort would be a metal mesh band.

      Nylon bands also vary from horrible to nearly perfect. Cheap nylon bands are sometimes very thin, or very stiff, and these bands can feel like they're cutting your wrist. A high quality nylon band is very comfortable. I like so-called "NATO" bands (actually more correctly called G10 bands) although they have a slight learning curve and aren't compatible with heart rate monitors. I favor an extra long NATO, which can be wrapped around the outside of a coat sleeve (or a wetsuit if you're a secret agent).

      Any watch band will be uncomfortable if it gets dirt or salt trapped under it. That probably makes a fine metal mesh band the best choice if comfort is your #1 priority. A lot of the shmutz ends up inside the mesh rather than rubbing against your skin. If you occasionaly rinse the band out you're OK.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. It is only going to get worse... by jrumney · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why is the word WORSE in the headline? There is nothing worse about consumers refusing to be fooled into buying crap they do not need.

    1. Re:It is only going to get worse... by skam240 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's to get at you personally.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  7. Re:Man, I'm in the wrong industry! by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Funny

    You and your KA band. HF is enough for for anyone.

  8. Nobody want some beanie babies? by plopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cabbage patch kids? Hulu hoops? Lava lamps? Tamagotchis? Smart watches? Anyone?

    In other words, fads come and go.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  9. It's only growing, not growing fast enough... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's only growing, not growing fast enough... welcome to the new fail. Also iWatch sales are actually up 50% YoY. The convenience of not fishing the phone out of your pocket was always going to be slim. Not everyone wants any watch on their wrist, much less tech bling. Oh and the iWatch 3 comes in a cellular version you can use without the phone, at the cost of battery life. The whole article reads like "they'll never be able to put a useful computer in a watch form factor". Well that's what they said about PCs. And laptops. And phones. I'm not sure saying it about watches is a good bet...

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  10. Re:Man, I'm in the wrong industry! by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Funny

    Networked underwear? Like a toaster that emails me when my toast is done? That's silly. Why would I want my underwear emailing me when the toast is done?

  11. Smart Watches were Obsolete before they were inven by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two fundamental problems with smart watches:

    My smart phone that is always in my pocket does far more and is less likely to get damaged.

    My dumb digital watch with an electrolumenescent back-light still does what I expect a watch to do, it does it for $35 dollars, it's permanently water proof for showers and pool swimming, it lasts 6 years on a single battery and I can't figure out why I would want to replace it.

    The screen of a smart watch is too small to do jack on and other than maybe buying a fitness tracker, I can't fathom screwing around with watch apps when my nice big phone is right in my pocket. The smart watch is a hangover from the Dick Tracey days of the radio watch fantasy, the problem is we already have better tech than was imagined in the Star Trek communicators, so we kind of leap frogged the whole Dick Tracey watch thing both functionally and practically. Now smart watches are relegated to to the nerd toy aisle unless and until they can be more practical than a real watch with some actually valuable, unique functions.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like