Hacker News Reader

Comment by Osmium | Hacker News Reader

> I think the watch will, in the long term, be a flop. Apple needs to find a real killer app for it or it is toast.

There already are killer apps. Fitness is one. The question isn't if wearables are going to be a success (they already are), but just how smart and connected we need them to be: do you choose the Fitbit or the Apple Watch? etc. It seems that most objections to smart watches are due to price and size/aesthetics, both of which are hopefully only temporary issues, rather than absolute functionality. A bit of imagination is all that's needed.

> Down-vote away. I know the truth hurts.

If you get down votes, it'll be for the attitude, not the opinion...

View on HN

The issue with saying "Oh yeah the Apple Watch is killer for fitness!" is that everyone who is into fitness and who cares about tracking stuff already has a fitness tracker. And these fitness trackers are cheaper, smaller, hardier, less of a target for theft, don't need to be continuously paired with a phone, and don't interrupt a workout to notify of text or phone call.

Nobody's going to jump me on my morning run to steal my FitBit, but they damn well are gonna jump me for my Apple Watch. I'm not going to wear my Apple Watch doing something like Crossfit where it could easily get broken but I'll happily wear my Jawbone UP because I know it can handle it. Also, fitness wearables are simply more comfortable to wear while exercising compared to the Apple Watch because the watch is bigger with a much bigger band and watchface for sweat to get trapped behind plus it has to be worn tight to the skin to capture heart rate which greatly limits range of motion.

The purpose-built fitness trackers are also more accurate than an Apple Watch as confirmed by multiple tests. They're FAR cheaper: $60 for an entry level Fitbit vs $349 for the entry-level smaller Apple Watch. And Fitbit is outselling Apple Watch every week again now after the initial Apple Watch sales.

Oh contraire, fitness is a 'success' because many think they should do more but don't have the willpower and then buy this magic device to overcome their lack of will.

This leads to hardware sales and non-usage.

Which makes it really hard for others to work on such a plattform.

That's a rather cynical view, no? Many people actively enjoy working out, and use these devices as a tracking tool rather than a motivational aide. It's a big market. No doubt your comment is true in some cases, but there have been plenty of contrary anecdotes too (people who've bought a fitness wearable and have become a lot healthier as a result).

I run 60km+ per week, I use wearables to track performance and do accurate heart rate training. I compete with my friends for distances, speeds, segments, Nike fuel any other metric we think is fun.

I don't lack will power (when my wearables run out of battery I still run).

So your comment sounds way off base to me. Just to give you a perspective you may not have seen.

Not sure how your example adds something to "many think".

"Many think" differently to what you said, as I illustrated. Which therefore actually defines wearables in "fitness" as a huge success, which is the exact opposite of the point you were making.

You have a whole industry built on wearables and fitness with millions of miles run/ridden/hiked/whatevered... That's hardly "non-usage".

Did you forget the point you were making?

If you need further convincing, look at the higher end of wearables, with Garmin, Polar, etc making specialised wearable devices, for specific sports and making a killing. Consumer-ising that space is surely a winning ticket. I mean that's essentially GoPros business model isn't it?

Not to make this a point, as my initial "many" is weak on facts, but your example makes it "one person think", not many.

No, I sited the fact all these wearable apps have heaps of usage.

But yes, comments on the internet are "one person think". Good luck with the self-rationalisation you got going there.

Most of the 'fitness' the phone tracks can done far better by a specialized device like the Fitbit, which is outselling the Apple Watch, or just by your phone. The major thing that people buy fitness trackers for... counting steps... can already be done by quite well by your phone since it's the thing that has GPS already (which is what your smartwatch uses) and your phone already has all the sensors to be a pedometer.

If you're the type that doesn't have their phone on you all the time, it's better done by a lightweight, lower-cost Fitbit which start at about 60 bucks as opposed to the $350/$400 starting point of the Apple Watch.

>> Down-vote away. I know the truth hurts.

> If you get down votes, it'll be for the attitude, not the opinion...

You missed the joke I guess. On HN almost anything negative about Apple gets you a virtual hanging more often than not. I was being sarcastic. There are a lot of people that are invested in the Apple cult to the point of being hurt by the truth. Down-voting is a way to close their eyes to pretend reality isn't there. In that world Apple's shit don't stink, even when there's plenty of it to go around.

The fact that the watch needs to be paired to a phone makes it a non-starter when evaluating fitness trackers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com