The best (and worst) smartwatches, fitness bands, and wearables of 2015

Wearables are going mainstream—what worked, what didn't, and what's in between?

Read the whole story

 

[cerberusTI]

That is a fair scale though, Apple could sell a lump of coal for $100 and still sell 3 million units in a quarter.

If the product was revolutionary their marketing department would have sold one to a good chunk of the planet by now, those sales numbers are pretty much a flop given their brand recognition.

 

[Coriolanus]

biffbobfred[/url]":3bjjz3t6]

Coriolanus[/url]":3bjjz3t6]I was curious about getting the Fitbit Charge HR, but reports of either allergic reactions and/or contact dermatitis caused me to hold off. I had an adverse reaction to the Fitbit Force, so I'm sure I'll have a similar reaction again.

My skin had a reaction at first too. It's subsided now.

Alternate wrists. wash band often

I don't think it would be effective for me, I have eczema and a history of extremely sensitive skin, especially with certain metals. The reaction for me is quick to manifest, but may take weeks to subside (my initial reaction, which resulted in inflammation and skin lesions, took nearly a month to completely go away).

 

[yd]

I like the look of the Microsoft Band and, having a Windows Phone I am sure it might integrate well. I just don't really want to be wearing something all the time which I can only assume will negate a lot of the use/benefit.

 

[Futurix]

I still need to be convinced that it is worth wearing something on my wrist again - I stopped wearing watches in 2002, when I got my first dumbphone and haven't looked back since.

 

[cerberusTI]

Has anyone tried the Sony B-Trainer yet?

I run with the previous music only version, but I noticed the new one the other day and may get it. The feature to read your mile splits is especially interesting if it is accurate.

On that note, this reads more like a feature list than a review of the products. Do you have one of each around or is this information just pulled off the internet?

If you do have these laying around Ars, having someone go for a run or otherwise get some exercise to see how well they work would be useful information.

 

[quietnine]

biffbobfred[/url]":19ulzkef]

RockDaMan[/url]":19ulzkef]

It was the most talked about wearable of the year, but the Apple Watch didn't revolutionize the industry like many thought it would (at least not yet).

The benefit of the doubt that Apple gets is yuuuge.

edit: An observation, not a complaint. They've often earned it.

The apple watch is Meh on (estimated) 3.5 million units pushed last quarter. Estimates are no other smart watch sold more than 300,000 in the quarter. Estimates are that all Android Wear devices combined for a bit over 700,000 in 2014.

Apple is on a totally different grading scale. If it doesn't push at least $2 billion a year, it's miscellaneous. The fact that Apple's new watch pushed out an estimated more than 10 times the nearest competitor and is still not called a success is the flipside of the Apple expectations.

Source? CNet is saying Apple sold total 2.8mil watches since release (released in april, we are one month away from that being 3 quarters). http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-watch-sa ... on-report/

Last year 3.3mil fitness trackers were sold and fitbit made up 2/3rds of those (http://www.businessinsider.com/33-milli ... ear-2014-5). The trend is that YoY fitness tracker sales are more than doubling. Since then, Nike Fuelband has dropped out (no doubt influenced by Cook sitting on their board) and Apple has entered. Even if numbers stayed relatively static (it's probable they continued to have drastic YOY increases) we're still looking at Apple doing less than or equal in sales to fitbit. Anecdotal evidence of walking around the mall suggests that they're not remotely that close.

Unless by smart watch you are limiting the definition to "watches that run something that resembles a mobile app" and are comparing it strictly against Android-wear devices (why?), but even then, your numbers for Apple are a bit overzealous.

 

[erichk]

Being a triathlete, I'll stick with my Garmin Forerunner 920XT and fenix 3. Both with way more functional, useful features than most of those listed in the article. The exception being the iWatch, which is still missing GPS functionality (unless pared with an iPhone) and not waterproof so completely useless for swimming. I get alerts via Bluetooth when I want to, there's live tracking so my GF can follow my bike rides online, they work with all my ANT+ bike and HR sensors, and I get more fitness statistics than I can possibly analyze. No complaints.

 

[chi7891]

What about pebble?

 

[vogelabv]

J117[/url]":3n2kl6s8]No mention of the Pebble Time, Steel, or Round? I seem to remember them getting decent reviews here.

That is troublesome.

If they were "just another smartwatch", or never beyond mediocre maybe they wouldn't be worth mentioning. As it is however, they have the best battery life, and some prefer their display, and they support multiple phone OSes. This article is embarrassing to skip them entirely.

 

[nosensewhatsoever]

JustQuestions[/url]"oe8nayl]I still don't understand the purpose of fitness bands, and this is coming from a person who gets 7 - 8 hours of exercise a week, divided approximately equally between cardio and resistance training.

The first time I thought of getting a fitness band was when I was doing a 2-month stint of HIIT, and thought it would be convenient to have a continuous heart rate monitor to know if I was hitting my BPM marks or not.

...Until I did some research and found out that they don't accurately measure your heart rate on a continuous basis. For accuracy you need the chest style continuous heart rate monitor, and I just can't be fucked with that.

What else do they even do? Measure the distance of your run? I can use Google Maps for that and figure it out in a second.

I just don't understand the purpose of the fitness bands. Honestly, I see them as a sort of badge that out-of-shape people wear to show that they are making an effort to do better by themselves...

Seriously, all I seem to need is a traditional watch for all my needs.

If somebody could enlighten me as to what practical usefulness you get out of these bands that you couldn't get from a traditional watch, it would be greatly appreciated. Even explaining why you would need a continuous heart rate monitor unless you have some sort of health problem, would be great.

As an out-of-shape fat boy trying to get things better, here is my reasons.

1) When trying to get healthy after years of making your butt bigger, it takes a lot of effort. For me, I need to see what I am doing and try to improve upon it. If I averaged 2500 steps last week (yes, that's low...that's where I was at originally!) I want to increase that to 2600 this week. I also want to know how effective those exercises are. Adding calorie counting to this gives me a good rough idea of where I'm at.

2) I do have potential heart issues. Being able to monitor my heart rate has been fantastic.

3) Yes, there is a "cool" factor. So sue me.

If you don't use the tool to improve yourself, then it's useless to you. I got a Microsoft Band, and it is helping me. Having researched health improvement, I know this is a long road. This tool will help guide me down that road. I don't have the natural inclination like you healthy guys, but I do have the desire to be healthier. This gives me the added incentive (I like doing better, beating my best times, making cool graphs of data) and this helps me channel those things into making me healthier.

Now, all I have to do is figure out how to change my diet for the better without me going on a binge.

 

[maniack]

That picture of the LG Urbane 2 (LTE) is actually the LG Urbane.

 

[nosensewhatsoever]

LeopardSeal[/url]":2hw1ngxi]Can we dispense with the hyperbole. I wear my Band v1 every day. It is not "incredibly uncomfortable". The only time I'm aware of it is when intentionally look at it.

I got a v1 version as well. It's not perfect, but it's not uncomfortable. I do notice it when I'm typing sometimes (I have to wear it with the screen on the bottom of my wrist because the bottom of the wrist is flatter and it's more comfortable, I'd probably wear the v2 version the other way). I also have to be careful with some Tae Kwon Do activities when I'm wearing it because I've loosened the clasp a few times.

Otherwise I like it. A lot.

 

[melgross]

cerberusTI[/url]":28w6wsp1]That is a fair scale though, Apple could sell a lump of coal for $100 and still sell 3 million units in a quarter.

If the product was revolutionary their marketing department would have sold one to a good chunk of the planet by now, those sales numbers are pretty much a flop given their brand recognition.

Apple Watch estimates for the year, which isn't finished for the watch yet, until the end of the next quarter, has been anywhere from a skeptical 5 million to an over enthusiastic 40 million. As always, the truth is somewhere in between.

But as with Samsung smartphone and tablets sales, all the numbers need to be taken as just guesses. If a company doesn't give real sales numbers, there is no real way to know what they are. But taking an average, we get between 15 and 20 million for the year. If true, that is a whopping number.

No matter how one looks at it, the smartwatch category was going nowhere until the rumors about Apple getting involved came out, and then Samsung, and a couple of others, rushed theirs out before Apple's appeared.

In the long run, we'll likely see the same bifurcation that we do in the smartphone industry, with Apple capturing the high end, with Android owning most all of the rest, except that Samsung's Tizen can give Android Wear a run for the money. And as with smartwatches, we'll see a small number of companies making very expensive medium quality models based on Android, such as the Vertu.

But I don't think that any of these manufacturers, including Google as the OS maker, would have been interested in this category if Apple wasn't there.

 

[Deleted member 174040]

vogelabv[/url]":zfrxxfg7]

J117[/url]":zfrxxfg7]No mention of the Pebble Time, Steel, or Round? I seem to remember them getting decent reviews here.

They have the best battery life, and some prefer their display, and they support multiple phone OSes. This article is embarrassing to skip them entirely.

This again?

Subjective reviewer gets to be subjective in her subjective overview of what's best and what isn't. Sales don't have to matter. It's all up to her.

 

[rm]

I have the MS Band 2. I like it but not at all for the reasons that I thought that I would. What I like in order of preference: Smart alarm, sleep tracker, watch. The other things that it does I could take or leave for the most part. The clasp is good imho and also imho they did a great job of designing in the hardware.

Smart alarm is amazing and something I would not want to live with out. Waking up at the right point in the sleep cycle makes a huge difference.

Sleep tracking has revealed somethings to me and making minor changes to my seeping environment have made a noticeable improvement. The tracking is not perfect but it does give me insight into differences between one night and another.

Its also just nice to have a regular old watch to check the time - who knew?

I use the Android app and its ok'ish. I am not sure exactly what I was expecting from it but somehow I find it disappointing.

 

[viridian]

J117[/url]":2tca0i5h]No mention of the Pebble Time, Steel, or Round? I seem to remember them getting decent reviews here.

Yeah, I'm actually shocked, considering that the Pebble Time Round is the only thing close to the Fossil notifiers in terms of actually being a decent watch. I got one for my birthday and absolutely love it.

Even stranger, it's the same person who's reviewing wearables who wrote the reviews on the Pebble Time Round:

http://meincmagazine.com/gadgets/2015/09/ ... martwatch/

http://meincmagazine.com/gadgets/2015/11/ ... its-cover/

http://meincmagazine.com/gadgets/2015/12/ ... healthier/

 

[g094389]

JustQuestions[/url]":d7mfbwgu]

If somebody could enlighten me as to what practical usefulness you get out of these bands that you couldn't get from a traditional watch, it would be greatly appreciated. Even explaining why you would need a continuous heart rate monitor unless you have some sort of health problem, would be great.

There is no reason why you would need or want one. You very accurately defined all the reasons one would provide you with no discernible or practical value. Hence, I deem your question to be mostly rhetorical in nature. I won't presume to guess at your motivations for asking the question at all, much less your motivation in asking it in the way that you did. Or perhaps you wanted to ask the question for the same reason I wanted to answer.

 

[cerberusTI]

melgross[/url]":12rztq6x]

cerberusTI[/url]":12rztq6x]That is a fair scale though, Apple could sell a lump of coal for $100 and still sell 3 million units in a quarter.

If the product was revolutionary their marketing department would have sold one to a good chunk of the planet by now, those sales numbers are pretty much a flop given their brand recognition.

Apple Watch estimates for the year, which isn't finished for the watch yet, until the end of the next quarter, has been anywhere from a skeptical 5 million to an over enthusiastic 40 million. As always, the truth is somewhere in between.

But as with Samsung smartphone and tablets sales, all the numbers need to be taken as just guesses. If a company doesn't give real sales numbers, there is no real way to know what they are. But taking an average, we get between 15 and 20 million for the year. If true, that is a whopping number.

No matter how one looks at it, the smartwatch category was going nowhere until the rumors about Apple getting involved came out, and then Samsung, and a couple of others, rushed theirs out before Apple's appeared.

In the long run, we'll likely see the same bifurcation that we do in the smartphone industry, with Apple capturing the high end, with Android owning most all of the rest, except that Samsung's Tizen can give Android Wear a run for the money. And as with smartwatches, we'll see a small number of companies making very expensive medium quality models based on Android, such as the Vertu.

But I don't think that any of these manufacturers, including Google as the OS maker, would have been interested in this category if Apple wasn't there.

I do not have any idea what the actual numbers are, that post was mostly a joke about the power of Apple marketing and branding.

There are probably a few million people who would buy any Apple product, no matter what it is.

 

[strohminator]

My Pebble Time Steel does exactly what I wanted it to do, plus it looks pretty good, and the battery lasts for 8 days.

 

[pkissel]

My relationship with FitBit started when I bought a FitBit Flex Nov 2014. A year later I wouldn't consider buying any of their newer products. I bought an Aria scale shortly afterwards that stopped working 2 weeks later. I had to go to Best Buy to get a replacement. My FitBit flex started getting quirky (not syncing, couldn't set alarms) about 3 months in and by the 4th month the band had developed cracks in two places. They sent me a replacement band that was already cracking when I pulled it out of the packaging. They sent me a complete replacement device but it started misbehaving within another month. Their support was offshore somewhere and the person with whom I interacted (via email only) was cold/distant and obviously following and sending scripted replies. I stopped using the FitBit Flex after this. My takeaway from my experience with FitBit is that they have some great software and ideas that mostly work, awful manufacturing/design quality, and poor support. While they did stand behind their product enough to replace it when it broke, its hard to overlook the trouble I went through to use it. Its doubtful I will ever want to buy another FitBit product and that's a shame because in Nov 2014 I really wanted to be an excited customer for the brand.

 

[theSeb]

JustQuestions[/url]":ani1u315]

Niceguy4186[/url]":ani1u315]

JustQuestions[/url]":ani1u315]I still don't understand the purpose of fitness bands, and this is coming from a person who gets 7 - 8 hours of exercise a week, divided approximately equally between cardio and resistance training.

The first time I thought of getting a fitness band was when I was doing a 2-month stint of HIIT, and thought it would be convenient to have a continuous heart rate monitor to know if I was hitting my BPM marks or not.

...Until I did some research and found out that they don't accurately measure your heart rate on a continuous basis. For accuracy you need the chest style continuous heart rate monitor, and I just can't be fucked with that.

What else do they even do? Measure the distance of your run? I can use Google Maps for that and figure it out in a second.

I just don't understand the purpose of the fitness bands. Honestly, I see them as a sort of badge that out-of-shape people wear to show that they are making an effort to do better by themselves...

Seriously, all I seem to need is a traditional watch for all my needs.

If somebody could enlighten me as to what practical usefulness you get out of these bands that you couldn't get from a traditional watch, it would be greatly appreciated. Even explaining why you would need a continuous heart rate monitor unless you have some sort of health problem, would be great.

I am a fan of my fitbit charge. I have a very inactive job, and on a normal day I get 5,000-6,000 steps or less. It serves as a good reminder that I need to get up and move around more often, easy to set and track goals, easy to track data, and social. I was in a 10,000 step challenge with a few friends, and when you end your night at 9,100 steps, you find yourself forcing yourself to do that bit extra to get up to the 10K. If you are very fit and want precise data, this isn't for you, but for general motivation it is great.

Thanks for this, it makes some amount of sense.

The step challenge is probably a very positive change for many people. I just hope they realize that walking, no matter how much of it you do is, is no replacement for vigorous cardiovascular exercise.

The benefits of cardiovascular exercise are only achieved by vigorous activity, 10 minutes or more (ideally 20 minutes or more) of highly elevated heart rate from cycling, running, or whatever. It strengthens your heart and reduces your resting heart rate. Along with a multitude of other benefits. More efficient oxygen absorption. More efficient breathing in general. Better lung functioning. Improved circulatory system...

You cannot get these benefits from walking.

Interesting. I just read a report a few weeks ago saying that walking every day is the best for weight loss.

 

[BoxFox]

guinnessduck[/url]":1ix8qcsu]I've been enjoying my Garmin Vivo Smart HR that I got as a present. Same price as the Fitbit HR (though you can find the Fitbit cheaper as the Garmin is an exclusive with Best Buy until January... grrr...), but it has a pretty decent display on it that lets me swipe through a lot of things, and receive phone notifications as well. Comparing it with my wife's Fitbit Charge HR they both seem to be pretty close on the quality of the optical heart rate sensor as well as the step tracking. Sure, for people who want/need really high accuracy it's hard to beat a chest strap, but for the everyday folk like us the optical sensor is just good enough.

It's also bulkier than the Charge HR, but on my wrist it feels comfortable and certainly no more bulky than an ordinary wrist watch. My only two real complaints are I wish it would hold more charge (lasts me about 5 days between charges), and that you could change the brightness of the backlight on the display.. it's fairly weak. But other than that I've been enjoying it for the last few weeks.

I'm actually totally surprised that the Vivosmart HR wasn't in this, Valentina ALSO did the review on that, but it's not at all included, which I find to be a shame. I love my Vivofit 2 but I tend to suck at pacing, having an HR monitor that's simple would be awesome.

Also the fact that I live with mine on, because I have a very short attention span and easily forget the simplest of things sometimes, so being able to shower is a must for me and the fitbit simply doesn't provide that, I also tend to just take random dips into pools which even if the band is splash resistant no manufacture other than Garmin actually ever feels the need to be able to survive that unless you're talking about things in the 300+ dollar, lasts 2 days tops range before recharging. I feel that this is a very neglected section of fitness band owners, but I know that they mostly market it on the low end to "try and be fit" that eventually toss it into their drawers never to be used again rather than actually be used as lifestyle tool.

Garmin could easily point that out but their advertising and focus kind of sucks compared to fitbit. And in the end, that's what will hurt them the most.

 

[cerberusTI]

brutaltruth[/url]":2yocsz27]All current smartwatches are trash. They all have terrible battery life and everything they can do, a smartphone can do better. If you $150+ on these gimmick watches so you can read a notification on your wrist I laugh at you.

As far as the fitness bands? Well if they help motivate fat, lazy, undisciplined people, I think that's great. Be warned though... The accuracy of these 'fitness' bands is not 100%. That goes for both the heart rate monitoring and the step counting.

Also a fun fact for all the fatties out there. The only trick to losing weight is calories in, calories out. It's amazing how many people go on these crash diets, swear by Gluten-Free garbage, avoid meats, avoid fats, avoid fast food, etc. Not to mention these same people who spend thousands of dollars on treadmills and workout equipment, using them MAYBE twice.

While calories absorbed vs calories used is a good indicator as to if you will gain or lose weight, it is not the entire story.

Exercise has the benefit of increasing your resting calorie burn, so you can burn more and eat more if your activity level is high. It also tends to make you not want to eat crap if you are burning a ton of calories in a day.

Despite the large number of calories I tend to consume, fast food holds no appeal at all. It is pretty hard to run well after eating it, and my body tends to object more the harder I push myself (I run an under 18 minute 5k on a good day as a point of reference).

 

[cerberusTI]

theSeb[/url]":24a2wern]

JustQuestions[/url]":24a2wern]

Niceguy4186[/url]":24a2wern]

JustQuestions[/url]":24a2wern]I still don't understand the purpose of fitness bands, and this is coming from a person who gets 7 - 8 hours of exercise a week, divided approximately equally between cardio and resistance training.

The first time I thought of getting a fitness band was when I was doing a 2-month stint of HIIT, and thought it would be convenient to have a continuous heart rate monitor to know if I was hitting my BPM marks or not.

...Until I did some research and found out that they don't accurately measure your heart rate on a continuous basis. For accuracy you need the chest style continuous heart rate monitor, and I just can't be fucked with that.

What else do they even do? Measure the distance of your run? I can use Google Maps for that and figure it out in a second.

I just don't understand the purpose of the fitness bands. Honestly, I see them as a sort of badge that out-of-shape people wear to show that they are making an effort to do better by themselves...

Seriously, all I seem to need is a traditional watch for all my needs.

If somebody could enlighten me as to what practical usefulness you get out of these bands that you couldn't get from a traditional watch, it would be greatly appreciated. Even explaining why you would need a continuous heart rate monitor unless you have some sort of health problem, would be great.

I am a fan of my fitbit charge. I have a very inactive job, and on a normal day I get 5,000-6,000 steps or less. It serves as a good reminder that I need to get up and move around more often, easy to set and track goals, easy to track data, and social. I was in a 10,000 step challenge with a few friends, and when you end your night at 9,100 steps, you find yourself forcing yourself to do that bit extra to get up to the 10K. If you are very fit and want precise data, this isn't for you, but for general motivation it is great.

Thanks for this, it makes some amount of sense.

The step challenge is probably a very positive change for many people. I just hope they realize that walking, no matter how much of it you do is, is no replacement for vigorous cardiovascular exercise.

The benefits of cardiovascular exercise are only achieved by vigorous activity, 10 minutes or more (ideally 20 minutes or more) of highly elevated heart rate from cycling, running, or whatever. It strengthens your heart and reduces your resting heart rate. Along with a multitude of other benefits. More efficient oxygen absorption. More efficient breathing in general. Better lung functioning. Improved circulatory system...

You cannot get these benefits from walking.

Interesting. I just read a report a few weeks ago saying that walking every day is the best for weight loss.

This depends upon what your starting point and intent are.

Cycling is probably the best to lose weight if you are moderately overweight, walking may be more appropriate if you are obese, and running will get it done with the greatest speed if you do not need to lose much (although at that point, fitness may be a better goal than weight loss).

 

[relvinnian]

LeopardSeal[/url]":uwb7z4ee]Can we dispense with the hyperbole. I wear my Band v1 every day. It is not "incredibly uncomfortable". The only time I'm aware of it is when intentionally look at it.

You forgot to disclose that you have perfectly rectangular wrists though. Okay, dumb joke.

I'm liking my Band 2 so far.

 

[Xhulu]

After nearly one year experience with a LG G Watch R, I gave up a month ago and ditched my smartwatch.

Why? Got tired of the daily charge burden, geeky look and not so great Android Wear software. The next question was: what could I replace it with? I checked extensively the main options:

1-Go back to the good old world of conventional watches and forget about connectivity. I did not really feel like it and really wanted to get the best of today's technology so I ruled this one pretty quickly

2- Opt for a fitness/sports band? I'm not really a sports fan and I really did not like the principle of those bands since they most face the same battery/geek look challenge.

In the end, since I believe that the 'killer app' for a watch (at least in my case) is changing time zones and time management, I opted for a Casio Edifice Bluetooth connected. Although a bit pricey, I'm pleased since I got rid of all the current smartwatch/band issues (energy, look) and still can manage the device with my smartphone. Not as many functionalities but surely, the ones I need and with solar charge benefit.

Best of both worlds IMHO, and I can't believe no tech website has seriously reviewed what I believe is one of the best implementation of connected devices till date.

 

[mhayden123]

Did they mean the LG Watch Urbane 2nd Edition. Because the LG Watch Urbane LTE was released a year ago with the Watch Urbane.

 

[aleph_nought]

All that copy and no mention of Pebble's Time, Time Steel and Time Round? They're the only smartwatches on the market with color always-on displays, days of battery life and iOS/Android compatibility. The new firmware update also adds first-party activity tracking, it's quite accurate and a lot more detailed than the old Misfit app.

 

[CraigJ ✅]

I had an Up which died, a FitBit Charge HR, which was totally inaccurate, and an Apple Watch Sport that was somewhat accurate, but no accurate enough for a $400 device, and it wasn't compelling enough to keep.

IMO this whole segment is very immature and has a long way to go. None of these hold a candle to the Polar or Garmin trackers. Yes, I know those are a different class, but much like cameras in smartphones finally getting good enough to replace a lot of people's dedicated cameras, I'm going to sit it out until the Apple Watch or equivalent can meet (for the most part) the performance of a Polar or equivalent.

 

[SuperflyDK]

The versatility of the Microsoft Bands can not be beat.

Much better batterylife than iWatch and much better features than any similar priced wearable.

GPS is great, batterylife as well, insight on my sleeping patterns is fantastic, Microsoft Health Dashboard is great and getting better, I also like that is works well with other ecosystem than my own (works with Windows phones, Androids and iPhones)

 

[SYNERDATA]

In my view the Microsoft Band is a Wrist Computer which also happens to contain fitness tracking biometric sensors, and it's best function and value is to conveniently place a computer interface on the wrist. I have had no interest in fitness trackers or biometrics, but I like having a computer on my wrist which I can write apps for to do anything I would like. It feels very natural to speak to Cortana on my wrist, and to dictate replies to messages with it. It is the most comfortable watch I have ever had. I view it firmly as the next step in the evolution of computer interfacing, and I am waiting for the ultimate display screen which is a pair of prescription lenses which are a 3D hololense. With a Band and head-mounted 3D display and speech I/O computer operation, machine/computer interfacing becomes most streamlined. We are almost there.

 

[ProfessorGuy]

rc26[/url]":31hmx1sy]monitor my son's CGM data

Cannabinoid Glaucoma Medicine?

 

[aleph_nought]

cerberusTI[/url]":cv2t71dt]

brutaltruth[/url]":cv2t71dt]All current smartwatches are trash. They all have terrible battery life and everything they can do, a smartphone can do better. If you $150+ on these gimmick watches so you can read a notification on your wrist I laugh at you.

As far as the fitness bands? Well if they help motivate fat, lazy, undisciplined people, I think that's great. Be warned though... The accuracy of these 'fitness' bands is not 100%. That goes for both the heart rate monitoring and the step counting.

Also a fun fact for all the fatties out there. The only trick to losing weight is calories in, calories out. It's amazing how many people go on these crash diets, swear by Gluten-Free garbage, avoid meats, avoid fats, avoid fast food, etc. Not to mention these same people who spend thousands of dollars on treadmills and workout equipment, using them MAYBE twice.

While calories absorbed vs calories used is a good indicator as to if you will gain or lose weight, it is not the entire story.

Exercise has the benefit of increasing your resting calorie burn, so you can burn more and eat more if your activity level is high. It also tends to make you not want to eat crap if you are burning a ton of calories in a day.

Despite the large number of calories I tend to consume, fast food holds no appeal at all. It is pretty hard to run well after eating it, and my body tends to object more the harder I push myself (I run an under 18 minute 5k on a good day as a point of reference).

Weightlifting is another good way to boost your metabolism and lose weight. I alternate between lifting days with different muscle groups and cardio days with high intensity, short duration exercises. I used to run a lot but now I prefer the muscle gain and overall buzz from lifting weights.

 

[rm]

ProfessorGuy[/url]":23sedn9c]

rc26[/url]":23sedn9c]monitor my son's CGM data

Cannabinoid Glaucoma Medicine?

CGM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_glu ... monitoring

Type 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mellitus_type_1

 

[vvanders]

Like others have said, no pebble? For shame.

Pebble Time Round is the only smartwatch that actually looks like a real watch.

 

[issor]

quietnine[/url]":1szb2hkj]

biffbobfred[/url]":1szb2hkj]

RockDaMan[/url]":1szb2hkj]

It was the most talked about wearable of the year, but the Apple Watch didn't revolutionize the industry like many thought it would (at least not yet).

The benefit of the doubt that Apple gets is yuuuge.

edit: An observation, not a complaint. They've often earned it.

The apple watch is Meh on (estimated) 3.5 million units pushed last quarter. Estimates are no other smart watch sold more than 300,000 in the quarter. Estimates are that all Android Wear devices combined for a bit over 700,000 in 2014.

Apple is on a totally different grading scale. If it doesn't push at least $2 billion a year, it's miscellaneous. The fact that Apple's new watch pushed out an estimated more than 10 times the nearest competitor and is still not called a success is the flipside of the Apple expectations.

Source? CNet is saying Apple sold total 2.8mil watches since release (released in april, we are one month away from that being 3 quarters). http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-watch-sa ... on-report/

Last year 3.3mil fitness trackers were sold and fitbit made up 2/3rds of those (http://www.businessinsider.com/33-milli ... ear-2014-5). The trend is that YoY fitness tracker sales are more than doubling. Since then, Nike Fuelband has dropped out (no doubt influenced by Cook sitting on their board) and Apple has entered. Even if numbers stayed relatively static (it's probable they continued to have drastic YOY increases) we're still looking at Apple doing less than or equal in sales to fitbit. Anecdotal evidence of walking around the mall suggests that they're not remotely that close.

Unless by smart watch you are limiting the definition to "watches that run something that resembles a mobile app" and are comparing it strictly against Android-wear devices (why?), but even then, your numbers for Apple are a bit overzealous.

https://m.idc.com//pressRelease/prUS25872215

IDC does this sort of analysis for a living, they think there were 3.6m units sold just during the debut quarter.

When the quarter results came out at the end of July it was established pretty quickly that the numbers were easily at least in the 2m units range, as the other revenue category jumped about $1.1b. If you take $1.1b and divide by $350, you get 3.1m devices. What we don't know is if the watch share of the "other" revenue is more or less than that $1.1b jump, and if the average selling price is closer to the cheapest watch or a more expensive one. Given the back to school quarter and the holiday sales quarter with $100 discount, it's probably safe to say that they're conservatively in the 8-10m units range for the year, likely more.

Edit: I see the article you quote is from June, and states 2.8m from April to June, which matches my numbers above, so perhaps I misunderstood your post.

 

[hiroprot]

Long-time Ars reader here...I've tried about every single one of these "fitness trackers" that are out there, and the one that has worked best for me is the Polar M400.

It's not the most expensive one, nor the cheapest one, but it did the one thing I needed: motivate me. The syncing doesn't work as reliably as I'd like it to, but it does give me a complete picture of what I'm doing in terms of fitness.

One thing that kept me dissatisfied with all of the other "accelerometor-based" gadgets is that I play recreational ice hockey about 3 times a week. The accelerometer-based solutions do very little to track that. The M400, combined with a Scosche forearm heart-rate monitor does a pretty good job.

The other major thing is battery life. I own an Apple Watch, and frankly, I don't like it. You could consider me an Apple "fan boy" for other things, but the "charge it every night" and limited activity and training capabilities are a dealbreaker for me. The M400 has weeks of battery life. I've never run out of battery on that thing, and rarely think about it. I It's extremely comfortable. It's not very stylish (I really prefer my 10 year old Suunto), but it's extremely functional.

So, bottom line: the M400 is an amazing fitness tracker watch, with just the right combo of features for me. It wins out over all the other gadgets in my mind, but rarely gets mentioned. I have the other gadgets and am not price-conscious, so you might want to give it a try.

 

[zogus]

annomander[/url]":fi2knhy3]

sigmasirrus[/url]":fi2knhy3]I remember feeling the same way about the first iPad. I thought "Who would use that instead of a laptop? I can't hardly do anything..." Now I do most of my personal computing on an iPad. (For serious stuff, yes you do need a real computer, i.e. development work).

I think with the 2nd gen Apple Watch they might show us some better use cases.

(Plus it will probably be thinner and have better battery life anyway so, well, never buy 1st gen lol)

The 3rd Gen will be better then the 2nd. The 4th will be better then the 3rd.
When do you make the jump?

I prefer to live in the now! You might be run over by a bus tomorrow!

I jump when they sell me on the idea.

I grabbed the first iPhone to come out in Japan (iPhone 3G) on the opening day, even though it was clearly underpowered for the task--3GS was the first iPhone that really worked well, I think.

I didn't think much of the 1st gen iPad until I actually touched one, then placed an order for it almost on the spot, even though I suspected immediately that the 256MB of RAM will hold it back (which it did).

The Watch? So far, not impressed enough to replace my IWC as the weekday watch. We'll see with Gen 2.

 

[mrsilver]

cerberusTI[/url]":11f5syf8]

melgross[/url]":11f5syf8]

cerberusTI[/url]":11f5syf8]That is a fair scale though, Apple could sell a lump of coal for $100 and still sell 3 million units in a quarter.

If the product was revolutionary their marketing department would have sold one to a good chunk of the planet by now, those sales numbers are pretty much a flop given their brand recognition.

Apple Watch estimates for the year, which isn't finished for the watch yet, until the end of the next quarter, has been anywhere from a skeptical 5 million to an over enthusiastic 40 million. As always, the truth is somewhere in between.

But as with Samsung smartphone and tablets sales, all the numbers need to be taken as just guesses. If a company doesn't give real sales numbers, there is no real way to know what they are. But taking an average, we get between 15 and 20 million for the year. If true, that is a whopping number.

No matter how one looks at it, the smartwatch category was going nowhere until the rumors about Apple getting involved came out, and then Samsung, and a couple of others, rushed theirs out before Apple's appeared.

In the long run, we'll likely see the same bifurcation that we do in the smartphone industry, with Apple capturing the high end, with Android owning most all of the rest, except that Samsung's Tizen can give Android Wear a run for the money. And as with smartwatches, we'll see a small number of companies making very expensive medium quality models based on Android, such as the Vertu.

But I don't think that any of these manufacturers, including Google as the OS maker, would have been interested in this category if Apple wasn't there.

I do not have any idea what the actual numbers are, that post was mostly a joke about the power of Apple marketing and branding.

There are probably a few million people who would buy any Apple product, no matter what it is.

First rule of marketing: have a decent product to sell.

You don't get brand loyalty from "a few million people" by churning out junk products and then marketing the hell out of it.

Marketing helps, but it doesn't build brand loyalty and it's certainly not the magic bullet that geeks seem to think it is.