3 ms·

$230 is a bit high up-front cost for a kids watch. Compare this to something like TickTalk and it seems that TickTalk has more features. https://www.myticktalk.

$230 is a bit high up-front cost for a kids watch. Compare this to something like TickTalk and it seems that TickTalk has more features. https://www.myticktalk.com/ https://www.myticktalk.com/. The design of the Google kids watch does look nicer though. TickTalk is pretty bulky and the UI is not great.

pquki4 2y ago
Spending $300 already on a watch is already expensive (in addition to a $500-$100 phone), and it is a relatively small market, especially for watch OS watches. $230 on a kid's watch -- potentially more than one if you have more than one kid -- is definitely for parents who have money to spare.
- kccqzy 2y ago
  It's clear to me that the point of this watch is that the wearer will not have a $500–$1000 phone in addition to the watch.
  - unregistereddev 2y ago
    I mean, that's fair, but phones don't need to cost that much. I can buy a current-gen basic Moto for $60 in the Fi store today. Who buys current flagship phones for kids? Most families I know upgrade one device at a time and the kids get old hand-me-down devices. It's a rich privileged family that is buying kids either new smartwatches or $500 - $1000 phones.
- mrinterweb 2y ago
  As a parent, my main value from watches like this are: * GPS, I can see where my kid is at (not always super accurate) * I can contact my child and my child can contact me (contacts are whitelisted) * School time lock helps avoid distraction (locks most watch functions when at school) * Knowing I can locate and contact my child helps me allow more personal freedom to my child. Within reason. I hear you that spending that kind of cash is not for everyone. For me, those features make it worth it. I am planning a prototype for an alternative to smart watches that will use LoRa Meshtastic as a platform. The main upside of this would lower upfront costs, and no recurring cellular provider bill. I think it would be cool to have a system where trusted contacts and kids friends could message each other. My goal is to build a management system parents could use to quickly set up a LoRa node for their child.

pquki4 2y ago

Spending $300 already on a watch is already expensive (in addition to a $500-$100 phone), and it is a relatively small market, especially for watch OS watches. $230 on a kid's watch -- potentially more than one if you have more than one kid -- is definitely for parents who have money to spare.

kccqzy 2y ago
It's clear to me that the point of this watch is that the wearer will not have a $500–$1000 phone in addition to the watch.
- unregistereddev 2y ago
  I mean, that's fair, but phones don't need to cost that much. I can buy a current-gen basic Moto for $60 in the Fi store today. Who buys current flagship phones for kids? Most families I know upgrade one device at a time and the kids get old hand-me-down devices. It's a rich privileged family that is buying kids either new smartwatches or $500 - $1000 phones.
mrinterweb 2y ago
As a parent, my main value from watches like this are: * GPS, I can see where my kid is at (not always super accurate) * I can contact my child and my child can contact me (contacts are whitelisted) * School time lock helps avoid distraction (locks most watch functions when at school) * Knowing I can locate and contact my child helps me allow more personal freedom to my child. Within reason. I hear you that spending that kind of cash is not for everyone. For me, those features make it worth it. I am planning a prototype for an alternative to smart watches that will use LoRa Meshtastic as a platform. The main upside of this would lower upfront costs, and no recurring cellular provider bill. I think it would be cool to have a system where trusted contacts and kids friends could message each other. My goal is to build a management system parents could use to quickly set up a LoRa node for their child.