Finally, that tech fad's over: Smartwatch sales tank more than 50% The latest figures on smartwatch shipments have shown a dramatic decline in interest among consumers. Analyst house IDC reported a 51.6 per cent drop in smartwatch sales, with just 2.7 million wrist-mounted computers shipped in the third quarter of the year, compared to 5.6 million over the same period last year. Apple and …
"It has also become evident that at present smartwatches are not for everyone," said Jitesh Ubrani, senior research analyst for IDC Mobile Device Trackers.
Well I can see why Jitesh is a senior research analyst, with such incredible insight. None of us ordinary folk could have worked that out on our own.
Fitness is still king, and the only vendor to show serious growth was Garmin, which saw sales of its sporty smartwatches rise 324 per cent over the year
I never thought much of smart watches until I got one, a Garmin Forerunner. They definitely do smart watches right.
Garmin watch faces are programmable and very customizable so you can have almost any watch face you want, even a Breitling or a Rolex. But the main advantage is that I can see who is calling or texting me with the flick of a wrist. Makes in invaluable when driving as I do not need to take my hands from the wheel, and it is also a very "rudeless" way of checking and reading your text messages while talking to someone.
The issue as I see it is "I'm a person who will buy a smartwatch and did" and "my current smartwatch is absolutely fine for what I want" - going to take something really special (or catastrophic death) to make me upgrade.
Garmin is interesting though - my newly running addicted colleague spent some horrific amount on a Garmin Fenix something - which is light-years ahead of my watch (if you like running).
My take is Apple went in way too fast and high-end on their watch, and now can't do anything too different without alienating their 1st gen buyers. Google is just sitting back and seeing how it all pans out and whether there really is a mass-market out there.
Garmin just went hell-for-leather in making the best fitness watch - and frankly can't see anybody touching them and their ecosystem they've built around it (and maybe more importantly Apple or Google taking that market ever as they both pissed around in the non-existent middle-ground).
I had both Pebbles(Kickstarter), the Pebble 2 disappointed, and my Garmin 310XT that I use for triathlon and training failed after 6-years, and I went with the Garmin Fenix 3. On average, using the GPS for 2-3 activities per week, two swim training sessions and an indoor bike session, the battery still lasts 6-days.
It turns out its a great smart watch. There are great apps, I get all my alerts, I can control music via BT MP3 player or phone etc. I've worn it 24/7 for a year now.
"But the main advantage is that I can see who is calling or texting me with the flick of a wrist. Makes in invaluable when driving as I do not need to take my hands from the wheel, "
Any sufficiently recent car fitted with a hands-free system will show at least the caller and some can also show the text messages as well. But you still can't make or answer calls with that Garmin... :-)
Any sufficiently recent car fitted with a hands-free system will show at least the caller and some can also show the text messages as well. But you still can't make or answer calls with that Garmin... :-)
If you're replacing the Garmin watch with stuff fitted in a car I'm afraid you have mildly missed the point of that watch. People with that watch walk, jog or cycle between two points, using a car for that would rather defeat the purpose :).
"But the main advantage is that I can see who is calling or texting me with the flick of a wrist. Makes in invaluable when driving as I do not need to take my hands from the wheel"
Yeah because turning your head to look at your wrist instead of the road while you read a message on a tiny screen on your wrist isn't dangerous at all!
I would strongly advise against trying to read messages while driving at all, but at least with your phone in a cradle on the dash you can glance at it without turning your head away from the road.
"But the main advantage is that I can see who is calling or texting me with the flick of a wrist. Makes in invaluable when driving as I do not need to take my hands from the wheel"
I can do that too without a watch. It is called a car cradle. I can buy 4 of them for the cost of 1 Garmin smartwatch.
>I would have thought that doing anything based on wrist flicking may be prone to error, as in introducing a very badly timed variant of butt dialling :).
It's only to turn on the display :)
Even some conventional LCD watches have used a similar mechanism to temporarily turn on the back light (thinking of a late-nineties Casio G-Shock).
You know hands-free devices are just as distracting to use whilst driving, right? And that it's potentially "driving without due care an attention" if the cops notice and are coming up to penalty-notice-quota day, or you have an accident whilst using it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36475180
#justsaying
"You know hands-free devices are just as distracting to use whilst driving, right?"
This is true, the only way I tend to use my phone while driving is by voice command, with Google Now set up and the phone unlocked and charging in it's cradle before I set off I can make phone calls or send text messages by voice command (usually just "I'm going to be late" or "I'm stuck in traffic", things I don't need to read a reply for) without looking at the phone at all.
Is it still dangerous to make hands free phone calls while driving, even when not looking at or touching the device? Possibly, but I would argue no more so than it is to hold a conversation with a passenger and how many of us sit in absolute silence ignoring our passengers while driving?
I've also always been annoyed by the specific addition of use of mobile phones while driving to UK law. Not because I have anything against the law as such, but firstly because it was pretty much covered by "due care and attention" and secondly because it doesn't take any account of CB radios that farmers/HGV drivers use all the time while driving, arguable with far greater risk because of the size of vehicles they're operating.
Re: Colin / Re: Garmin
About as distracting as passengers or a speedo which obliviously need to be banned too
actually No, the car passengers - because they are in the same reference frame as the driver - do not have a deleteriously measurable effect similar to 'killer' sending text, 'killer' reading text, 'killer' holding a phone whilst making a call or 'killer' making a 'hands-free' call to someone who is *not* in your frame of reference.
This was a surprising result from some real science. . .
I think the write-up concluded that a local passenger might/did spot the oncoming cement truck and their change in body language was sufficient to cause enough driver caution upgrades
as for the speedo, dunno, but two recent cars - a Yaris and a sci-fi Civic both had a virtual digital speedo set at 'infinity' so there was little focus shift required for road/instrument reading. . .
the 'shock' fact was that hands-free is very dangerous in cars. That why robot AI driving, with pollution compensating micro-payments & online pay-to-drive, is on its way, inexorably*, leaving the person in charge of the car to surf to his desired content. (*except for 1970's diesel Landy's)
Dear Anon,
I am far from advocating use of mobile phones for such things like texting, browsing or even sometimes talking hands free. I do use my phone as a satnav that sits in my line of sight in a holder. I set it up before I set off. I refrain from touching it while driving ( the phone that is). Is this more distracting than the mirror, oil light or the Speedo?
I sometimes see two people sat in car in front of me with the driver turning their head to talk to their passenger often completely oblivious to the speed limit they just broke. I don’t do this with my passengers because it seems safer not to. I also don’t have a problem with telling the passenger to shut-up either ( and it helps to reduce the number of future passenger requests).
Okay, I'd just read the research & sometimes the passengers can be helpful, but I agree with you that there are times when. . . . !
in EU (where I live) the cops have started monetising the locals "need-to-chat", it's now €500 per offence - to hold the phone in the hand - the spot radar installations are being allowed to rust as now a single cop in a car, with a notepad, is earning the village enough to pay his wages, and some left over for the mayor.
for some unknown reason everyone is still talking! muppets.
I have had an Alfa written off, in 1996, when an idiot crashed into the two cars behind me at the roundabout, then they both rippled forward with enough energy to bork my car. His excuse in the nineties was that his Nokia brick had just rung - it was natural to answer - so he didn't notice the tailback!
I still don't think the smartwatch will help road safety, but yes, the driver most certainly can.
Terrible battery capacity is the main limiting factor of these devices, reducing their ability to even fulfill the main function of a watch, that of constantly displaying the time. Is it feasible to use the watch's wristband as extra battery space? Do any manufacturers do this? Just curious.
Its not just naff battery life, bar a few niche things like a fitness tracker, I can't see how a smart watch improves on either a watch or a smart phone.
I can remember being a school kid and salivating over a Casio calculator watch in the early 80s. Looked cool, however trying to use tiny buttons soon became tiresome.
The main issue with trying to get a watch to do too much hasn't changed since then. The watch form factor is just too small to do anything much other than well be a watch. I guess a wrist smart phone might do it, but who wants a 5 inch smart phone strapped to their wrist ? Although I'd see a bigger market in smartphone wrist straps than smart watches.
I need a watch to well tell the time, with a battery that will last for at least 1 year, more likely 5 years ( if its digital ) . A smart phone I need to be big enough to see without a microscope, with a battery that will last a day between charges.
It is a valuable addition to a smart phone.
To be honest, I prefer to have my phone in sight instead. I just wish it was easier to temporarily kill off vibrate - I don't want a phone on "silent", I want it on "do not disturb" and those are NOT the same.
Ahhhh yes.... Sxxxxxx Mxxxxxx arrived back at school after Christmas 1979 with a *gold-plated* Casio calculator watch, the bastard! I got an Airfix Spitifre, IIRC. And the lifelong chip on the shoulder I have to thank him for is what got me this glamorous, jet-set job in finance infosec, whilst he's now... *type type* a professor at Kings College London.
* now if you'll excuse me, I'm just off to my safe cupboard for a little cry...
Pebble 2 have connectors for smart wrist bands. It's suppose to be for stuff like extra sensors but you could probably put a small flexible battery (assuming anyone would be willing to risk it post note) into a wrist band. Of course my pebble steel lasts about five days between charges so it isn't that desperately needed.
>The watch form factor is just too small to do anything much other than well be a watch.
A small display can communicate the time just fine - as traditional watches do by hands or segmented LCD display. However, there are other data or states that can also be communicated just fine on a small display, such as a message notification. Even if only using watch hands, lots of useful info can be read - speed, altitude, direction, time. Even a single RGB LED can communicate useful info (type of incoming message, battery level etc, as seen on Blackberry and some Android phones already).
Casio and Citizen both makes watches with this sort of functionality, both with 1 year + battery life.
Personally, I'll wait til SoC and battery tech allow a smartwatch to be smaller, and the cost of selective laser sintering of titanium becomes cheap enough to let me design (or rather, copy a 1969 Omega Chronostop) my own watch case. It will communicate to me by vibration and through its hands ( the hands will 'dance' at 6 o'clock for a text message, for example).
I have a Garmin VivoActive HR and the battery life is pretty awesome - I get over a week per charge (sometimes up to 10 days), and that's with a reasonable amount of GPS usage during running, which I do 3 times a week.
Not all smartwatches have dismal battery life like Apple's offering. I don't need a battery-wristband...
I just got the non HR version of the VivoActive and I love it. 1 week or so of battery life, customizable, water proof to like 50 meters, and it cost me $85. Not fully smart as you can't reply to texts, but I can read them, see who's calling, see the weather etc. Replaced my beloved 26 year old G-Shock (at least for a while).
I use a first gen pebble time too. Very useful to me. Their new Time 2 or whatever just didn't do much extra that was useful for me to upgrade. Plus they seem to have gone down the already saturated fitness route with their Health thing.
The other problem for Pebble is that they just don't have the mass to be able to afford the marketing required to really shift numbers. They depend on social media and word of mouth, so even though they are probably the most sorted smartwatch and one of the cheapest, nobody knows it.
It's a great example of when shiny corporate marketing world of 20 somethings in 'generic Western advert city' meets the real world of normal folk in rainy swindon or Sheffield.
I mean I like the idea of having a 70s scifi film prop on my wrist but until it does something useful and has a battery that lasts at least as long as a kindle, I'm not taking the risk of getting robbed or breaking it.
We tolerate smartphones batteries and risks because they are just So. Damn. Useful.
I dunno, generic smartwatches were always a toy looking for a market. I never saw them working, but fitness trackers seem to be doing quite well. But like tablets everyone that wants one has one so they will only be selling replacements now.
I think VR will do ok, but for console gaming not much else. Sony has theirs and MS will be bringing one out with the new XBox. Occulus will probably stay for the high end PC gamers but not much else.
TELLS TIME Oh, wait, those can be had for about $50 (or less) at the corner drug store. Oh, and the batteries last years not days, so they can be simple (non explosive) ones. Anything else is just dumb "applications" that I really don't need on my wrist unless I'm Dick Tracy (which I'm not!).
Me? I've got a Seiko, which has lasted around 20 years or so, and will likely last another 20.
To be honest, I do have a bit of a problem with the idea that people are to friggin' lazy to reach for their phone to read texts and pick up a call. The only functionality that a watch can add is indeed acting as a sports sensor, but for that you don't need to waste frankly stupid amounts of money.
It stinks a bit too much of the 'look at me' culture. I buy devices because their functionality happens to be of use to me, not because I need to signal I belong to a specific club as marketeers would like me to think.
>To be honest, I do have a bit of a problem with the idea that people are to friggin' lazy to reach for their phone to read texts and pick up a call.
I'm too lazy to reach into my pocket for my phone if all I want to do is read the time. That is why I wear a watch (currently a £5 Casio, though I have a windup for when I scrub up). It is simply quicker and more convenient.
Every time I pull my phone out of my pocket there is a small (but real) chance I will drop it, and other the lifetime of a phone those chances add up. There is also a chance there will be water, mud, oil or some other grime on my hands, substances I would rather keep on the outside of my clothing and off my phone.
"To be honest, I do have a bit of a problem with the idea that people are to friggin' lazy to reach for their phone"
I have a fitbit Blaze which is a fitness tracker with a bit of smartness.
when I'm at home my phone usually sits on a side table in its cradle across the room from the sofa, so if it rings then a quick glance at my fitbit allows me to decide whether I need to get up and answer the 'phone, likewise if I get a text and can decide if I need to respond it or can simply ignore it.
if I'm listening to music streamed from my phone, I can stop /start/ skip/rewind from the comfort of my sofa / armchair/kitchen etc etc. So in that respect they're useful functions but only if I'm at home, if I'm out and about my phone is always in reach so I use the phone.
So really it's not really about being lazy friggin or otherwise.
YMMV
How about a smart meta-watch that pairs with your smart watch that pairs with your smart phone that takes the place of your brain, and saves all that wrist flicking that saves all that getting the phone out of your pocket, bag or case, that saves all that remembering things we used to do?
Someone always pulls the "I've got a watch that actually tells the time" thing on every one of these discussions. It's not unlike the "I've got a phone that I use to actually make phone calls" things.
I don't really need a watch (or a phone) to tell the time, the time is everywhere I need it.
I do like the no ring tone silence, and the quick look to see if a notification is worth acting on or can be ignored.
Really there are a billion things in this world that I don't find useful but others do. I'm not really all that inclined to try and deride people that do find them useful though. That would make me look far more like a tosser than having a smartwatch would.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
