4 ms·

> I don't understand why people insist on paying hundreds of dollars for a "name", when the watch you are describing is only worth $50, give or take. Why do pe

> I don't understand why people insist on paying hundreds of dollars for a "name", when the watch you are describing is only worth $50, give or take. Why do people pay for The North Face, when you can have knock-off brands for 1/5th the price? Part of it is paying for better quality assurance, more predictable and coherent UX, and so on. But a big part is that yeah, this day and age, watches are fashion / status accessories. They do nothing your phone can't. That doesn't mean they have no value to the buyers: the continued popularity of pricey mechanical watches is proof that there's more to this story. The problem is that smartwatches never really positioned themselves as particularly... interesting. They don't signal social status, they aren't pretty, they don't do anything mind-blowing. They're just somewhat cheap-looking and oversized black slabs that display messages from your phone, clumsily. So far, the closest to a "killer" application for the tech is trying to gamify everyday activities by tracking steps, sleep patterns, or heart rate. But how many people stay fixated on this and really keep it up in the long haul? As for the fashion part... there's only so much mileage you can get out of the ability to change wallpapers or bands.

gvurrdon 3y ago
For me, what has been a "killer" feature is the ability to use voice commands to: - Send and respond to messages. - Set timers. - Set reminders. This is far easier than getting out a phone and trying to type on a horrid touchscreen keyboard. Paying for things and timing runs are also useful. The Apple Watch does all these things adequately, though I don't like using an iPhone.
shiroiuma 3y ago
>They do nothing your phone can't. Huh? The simple fitness tracker watches track your heart rate, sleep quality, step count, etc. Your phone can't do any of that stuff; you need something attached to your body for those measurements. >So far, the closest to a "killer" application for the tech is trying to gamify everyday activities by tracking steps, sleep patterns, or heart rate. So you just contradicted your earlier statement. >As for the fashion part... My cheap Amazfit fitness tracker is not fashionable at all: it's very boring looking, and no new band is going to change that. For some people, overpriced watches might be a fashion symbol, but for others (esp. anyone spending less than $75) they're really not.

gvurrdon 3y ago

For me, what has been a "killer" feature is the ability to use voice commands to: - Send and respond to messages. - Set timers. - Set reminders. This is far easier than getting out a phone and trying to type on a horrid touchscreen keyboard. Paying for things and timing runs are also useful. The Apple Watch does all these things adequately, though I don't like using an iPhone.

shiroiuma 3y ago

>They do nothing your phone can't. Huh? The simple fitness tracker watches track your heart rate, sleep quality, step count, etc. Your phone can't do any of that stuff; you need something attached to your body for those measurements. >So far, the closest to a "killer" application for the tech is trying to gamify everyday activities by tracking steps, sleep patterns, or heart rate. So you just contradicted your earlier statement. >As for the fashion part... My cheap Amazfit fitness tracker is not fashionable at all: it's very boring looking, and no new band is going to change that. For some people, overpriced watches might be a fashion symbol, but for others (esp. anyone spending less than $75) they're really not.