5 ms·

I think the health tracking features are the major differentiating feature for wearables. Fit people want to track their exercise and stay fit and the unfit (fo

by Fezzik 9y ago

I think the health tracking features are the major differentiating feature for wearables. Fit people want to track their exercise and stay fit and the unfit (for the most part) want to get fit. These two groups are 99% of the population. And, as we're finding in the 21st century/age of plenty, fitness takes some work. This thread alone indicates wearable can be a big motivator for fitness. In addition, the health tracking will only get better and lead to preemptive sensing for cardiac events, insulin detection, and who knows what else. I think the market for wearables (watches) is bigger than the iPod market, as wearables solve a real problem (fitness tracking and health monitoring) and are more than an awesome convenience.

Steko 9y ago
I agree with all points except when you assume 'wearables' implies 'watches'. Similarly to payments, the health benefits can be delivered with a much smaller device. If health is the main benefit than that big gorgeous battery-sucking screen is a waste.
- Fezzik 9y ago
  True. I would think the watches category will continue to occupy the pretty good/general tracking and health stats market (which should be huge) and, as the tech advances, there will always be smaller, screenless, more accurate detectors for specific use cases. I am still amazed that my watch can track my laps while swimming (very accurately) and simultaneously track my pulse (less accurately, but that'll improve). And keep my calendar, deliver notifications, etc...
- nradov 9y ago
  If you want to go beyond just counting steps and track actual activities (running, cycling, swimming, hiking, golf, etc) then you need some kind of display with buttons or touch screen.
visarga 9y ago
"Wearable Fitness Devices Don’t Seem to Make You Fitter" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/upshot/wearable-fitness-devices-dont-seem-to-make-you-more-fit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/upshot/wearable-fitness-d...
- shawndumas 9y ago
  efficacy and desire are two different things
- coldtea 9y ago
  Yeah, you also need to move your ass. Diets don't seem to make people leaner either, but it's a multi-hundred billion industry.
  - nradov 9y ago
    Buying a fitness tracker is a way to signal to everyone that you care about fitness without actually sweating. Just like buying "athleisure" clothes or nutritional supplements.
atmosx 9y ago
Fitness tracking is nice, but I believe that for 90% of runners is totally irrelevant. They have other, simpler metrics and work well. Those who want wearables buy specialized equipment (heart rate monitoring, etc.) Add to all the above that an iPhone with an armband is just as easy to manage. If the price drops by half, then it might become an interesting proposition, but till then, I don't see the watch as an iPod-like product and I am even considering buying one - I had a pebble before.
- kelnage 9y ago
  Based on what I've seen at a local running club with 60+ members, most regular runners seem to have picked up at least one wearable (although I haven't seen that many Apple watches - most have gone for either Garmin or TomTom). In fact, I'm certainly in the minority as someone who hasn't. That said - the more professional members are generally also in that minority too - they tend to stick to using their phone or they don't bother tracking their runs at all.
  - photojosh 9y ago
    And not being on Strava is as much as a social faux pas as is not being on Facebook is for society at large? :)
    - kelnage 9y ago
      One of our most prolific runners put it best: "if it's not on Strava, it didn't happen".
Lio 9y ago
This probably fits with the iPod narrative but for me the current Apple Watches just aren't good enough for sports use. What do I mean? Well specifically they lack ANT+ support so they won't work sensors I already own. E.g. Cycling power meters, heart rate monitors, electronic groupsets, etc. Some of those I could replace cheaply with Bluetooth alternatives but not all of them. In the future I'd like to look at things like blood oxygen monitors, not having Ant+ really cramps your choices. I don't find Garmin products all that reliable but if it was purely for sports I'd currently buy one of their watches over an Apple Watch. (I own and really like my Mac and iPhone so I think in other areas I must fit the Apple customer profile).
- nradov 9y ago
  I've been using the latest Garmin Forerunner 935 for a couple months and so far it's been reliable. We'll see how long it lasts. But realistically I think we're going to have to consider wearable devices as disposable after a few years.
  - photojosh 9y ago
    Like with other tech, they tend to keep on working just fine, but you want to replace them because the new model has better features. I upgraded from the 910 to the 920 to get the Bluetooth upload. That said, I'm not particularly tempted by the 935 over the 920, and I know people still using the 310XT which was released in 2009...
- photojosh 9y ago
  The lack of ANT+ is bad, but it's not the end of the world. Of the sensors I have currently (HRM, power meter, Stryd, speed sensor), the only one that doesn't have Bluetooth LE is the speed sensor. I note the electronic groupsets as an issue though. The next WatchOS update will also add the ability to connect to 2 Bluetooth LE devices directly, rather than requiring the phone to do so. (Not sure if this is on top of the existing support for an external HRM or not.) IMHO what's lacking is purely apps. For someone used to a Garmin or similar, the built-in workout tracking is a joke, and you don't get any useful exports or imports. If there was a decent app that could give me data screens and a GPX file when done (and auto-upload to Strava probably), I'd use it for 4/5 of my runs/rides and just bring out the Garmin (920XT here) for the longer workouts where battery life is an issue.
usrusr 9y ago
In my observation, the most immediate effect of the Apple watch has been that enthusiasts seem to be more willing now to show off their Polars and Garmins in "civilian" settings. To those who have been using HRM straps for years or even decades, the fitness aspects of the Apple watch feel cute at best, much like the minimalistic fitness trackers that recently created a market as always-on step counters. The actual technology is converging. The latest offerings from all three traditions share the same feature sets: sports HRM/GPS watches now have messaging and background tracking, communication watches have added GPS and HRM and even the minimalistic always-on activity monitors have evolved into full smart watches, e.g. Fitbit Blaze. With features converged, the key differentiator is image, which has been the main driver of the wristwatch market for almost a century. Back to normal, in a way. Apple for those who identify with business, Garmin or Polar for those who identify with enthusiast level sports and Fitbit etc for those who identify with more casual fitness. Apple feels surprisingly "Microsoft" in this group. What remains interesting is if the fitness and sports traditions will eventually merge on the image level (with "sports" strictly higher status as in "more serious") or if those brands will end up binned away in a spartan "training geek" category that casuals would go to lengths to avoid being associated with.

by Fezzik 9y ago

Steko 9y ago

I agree with all points except when you assume 'wearables' implies 'watches'. Similarly to payments, the health benefits can be delivered with a much smaller device. If health is the main benefit than that big gorgeous battery-sucking screen is a waste.

Fezzik 9y ago
True. I would think the watches category will continue to occupy the pretty good/general tracking and health stats market (which should be huge) and, as the tech advances, there will always be smaller, screenless, more accurate detectors for specific use cases. I am still amazed that my watch can track my laps while swimming (very accurately) and simultaneously track my pulse (less accurately, but that'll improve). And keep my calendar, deliver notifications, etc...
nradov 9y ago
If you want to go beyond just counting steps and track actual activities (running, cycling, swimming, hiking, golf, etc) then you need some kind of display with buttons or touch screen.

visarga 9y ago

"Wearable Fitness Devices Don’t Seem to Make You Fitter" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/upshot/wearable-fitness-devices-dont-seem-to-make-you-more-fit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/upshot/wearable-fitness-d...

shawndumas 9y ago
efficacy and desire are two different things
coldtea 9y ago
Yeah, you also need to move your ass. Diets don't seem to make people leaner either, but it's a multi-hundred billion industry.
- nradov 9y ago
  Buying a fitness tracker is a way to signal to everyone that you care about fitness without actually sweating. Just like buying "athleisure" clothes or nutritional supplements.

atmosx 9y ago

Fitness tracking is nice, but I believe that for 90% of runners is totally irrelevant. They have other, simpler metrics and work well. Those who want wearables buy specialized equipment (heart rate monitoring, etc.) Add to all the above that an iPhone with an armband is just as easy to manage. If the price drops by half, then it might become an interesting proposition, but till then, I don't see the watch as an iPod-like product and I am even considering buying one - I had a pebble before.

kelnage 9y ago
Based on what I've seen at a local running club with 60+ members, most regular runners seem to have picked up at least one wearable (although I haven't seen that many Apple watches - most have gone for either Garmin or TomTom). In fact, I'm certainly in the minority as someone who hasn't. That said - the more professional members are generally also in that minority too - they tend to stick to using their phone or they don't bother tracking their runs at all.
- photojosh 9y ago
  And not being on Strava is as much as a social faux pas as is not being on Facebook is for society at large? :)
  - kelnage 9y ago
    One of our most prolific runners put it best: "if it's not on Strava, it didn't happen".

Lio 9y ago

This probably fits with the iPod narrative but for me the current Apple Watches just aren't good enough for sports use. What do I mean? Well specifically they lack ANT+ support so they won't work sensors I already own. E.g. Cycling power meters, heart rate monitors, electronic groupsets, etc. Some of those I could replace cheaply with Bluetooth alternatives but not all of them. In the future I'd like to look at things like blood oxygen monitors, not having Ant+ really cramps your choices. I don't find Garmin products all that reliable but if it was purely for sports I'd currently buy one of their watches over an Apple Watch. (I own and really like my Mac and iPhone so I think in other areas I must fit the Apple customer profile).

nradov 9y ago
I've been using the latest Garmin Forerunner 935 for a couple months and so far it's been reliable. We'll see how long it lasts. But realistically I think we're going to have to consider wearable devices as disposable after a few years.
- photojosh 9y ago
  Like with other tech, they tend to keep on working just fine, but you want to replace them because the new model has better features. I upgraded from the 910 to the 920 to get the Bluetooth upload. That said, I'm not particularly tempted by the 935 over the 920, and I know people still using the 310XT which was released in 2009...
photojosh 9y ago
The lack of ANT+ is bad, but it's not the end of the world. Of the sensors I have currently (HRM, power meter, Stryd, speed sensor), the only one that doesn't have Bluetooth LE is the speed sensor. I note the electronic groupsets as an issue though. The next WatchOS update will also add the ability to connect to 2 Bluetooth LE devices directly, rather than requiring the phone to do so. (Not sure if this is on top of the existing support for an external HRM or not.) IMHO what's lacking is purely apps. For someone used to a Garmin or similar, the built-in workout tracking is a joke, and you don't get any useful exports or imports. If there was a decent app that could give me data screens and a GPX file when done (and auto-upload to Strava probably), I'd use it for 4/5 of my runs/rides and just bring out the Garmin (920XT here) for the longer workouts where battery life is an issue.

usrusr 9y ago

In my observation, the most immediate effect of the Apple watch has been that enthusiasts seem to be more willing now to show off their Polars and Garmins in "civilian" settings. To those who have been using HRM straps for years or even decades, the fitness aspects of the Apple watch feel cute at best, much like the minimalistic fitness trackers that recently created a market as always-on step counters. The actual technology is converging. The latest offerings from all three traditions share the same feature sets: sports HRM/GPS watches now have messaging and background tracking, communication watches have added GPS and HRM and even the minimalistic always-on activity monitors have evolved into full smart watches, e.g. Fitbit Blaze. With features converged, the key differentiator is image, which has been the main driver of the wristwatch market for almost a century. Back to normal, in a way. Apple for those who identify with business, Garmin or Polar for those who identify with enthusiast level sports and Fitbit etc for those who identify with more casual fitness. Apple feels surprisingly "Microsoft" in this group. What remains interesting is if the fitness and sports traditions will eventually merge on the image level (with "sports" strictly higher status as in "more serious") or if those brands will end up binned away in a spartan "training geek" category that casuals would go to lengths to avoid being associated with.