Android Wear Becomes 'Wear OS by Google' as 1 in 3 Android Wear Watches are Used by iPhone Owners

[manu chao]

"Wearable" is a universal term that applies to a wide range of fashion categories. When you design a software that could be used in wide range of potential products, you end up compromising and it greatly increases the scope of what it needs to do.

By narrowing the focus to just a watch category, developers and designers can focus on making a great watch product and nothing else.

So, Google should focus only making software for smartwatches? Not dabble in things like wireless headphones or smart speakers as Apple is doing? A very close relative to iOS is powering the Apple TV and the HomePod, and watchOS is also based on iOS. But if Google is doing something similar, they got it all wrong?
[doublepost=1521202444][/doublepost]

I also have to say that I think Android watches don’t nearly have the marketing that Apple does. Everywhere I go, it’s the Apple Watch on TV, billboards, magazine articles, etc. Not to mention, the iPhone being highly popular, it’s natural that one would choose the Apple Watch.

What percentage of Apple Watches are sold to Android users do you think? About none, as you need an iPhone to configure the Apple Watch. Meaning, Android Wear smartwatches have a significantly larger market than the Apple Watch. If somebody doesn't have an iPhone, all the Apple Watch marketing is very unlikely to get her or him to buy one.

 

[WWPD]

"Wear OS by Google."

That really rolls off the tongue and is catchy.

 

[44267547]

What percentage of Apple Watches are sold to Android users do you think?.

Not the point I was making. Please reread my post. I was iterating that Android doesn’t market their watches at all, specifically how is the consumer to be attracted to something they’re not aware of? Versus Apple marketing their watches, at least it has an impact on the market regardless of what phone someone chooses to use.

 

[manu chao]

Not the point I was making. Please reread my post. I was iterating that Android doesn’t market their watches at all, specifically how is the consumer to be attracted to something they’re not aware of? Versus Apple marketing their watches, at least it has an impact on the market regardless of what phone someone chooses to use.

Well, Apple 'marketing their watches' (in the way described by you) is just organic usage of Apple Watches by set designers/script writers/prop people. You could mount the same argument for Android in general, that Android is 'not successful' because it is not considered cool enough by the creative people.

 

[44267547]

Well, Apple 'marketing their watches' (in the way described by you) is just organic usage of Apple Watches by set designers/script writers/prop people. You could mount the same argument for Android in general, that Android is 'not successful' because it is not considered cool enough by the creative people.

Regardless, don’t you think the success of a product is by successfully marketing it? Take a look at Pebble for example and look what happened to them. They didn’t market any of their products and the general consumer had no idea what a Pebble watch even was. So again, I digress, when you successfully market A product, or its features and capabilities, it’s allowing the consumer to demonstrate what it is and gain interest to see if it’s something they would want to purchase bars in what they like about it. If you don’t market something, no one knows it exists. Seems rather ironic, does it not? That is the point I was making about android wear. Not sure how else I can iterate this to you through three different posts.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Wear is a stupid name. Instead of trying to make Wear OS into one-OS-fits-all-wearable, just own the category and make the best OS for watch form factor devices.

Where are all the people using wearing Wear OS watches? They are rare sighting even at Google campus in Mountain View.

And if you want to demonstrate your seriousness of the category, make a Pixel Watch.

Lol you’re kidding right?
Android users went googol over Motorola 360 then again in 2015 model then nothing after that!! A pixel Watch by a company that doesn’t make any watches - htc is just silly. Even LG doesn’t make a decent watch. Diesels Full Guard (fossil builds this) looks promising but it’s still an Android Watch.

I don’t see the reason why 1 in 3 Wear OS purchases wouls be Apple iPhone users?
[doublepost=1521222454][/doublepost]

iPad was mocked when its name was announce. Maxi-Pad jokes galore. Also... EarPod... AirPod.... Apple Watch? Talk about clunky names. #thoseinglasshouses

I agree with you on Wear OS being awkward. Like how they name cars flow-y sounding names. "Introducing the new Hyundai Elantra (insert Fabio hair air breeze wave)."

Lmao dude liquid just rushed out my nose while laughing. Glad I don’t own that car !

 

[manu chao]

Regardless, don’t you think the success of a product is by successfully marketing it?

Yes, but Apple paying for product placement is not an important part of this.

Take a look at Pebble for example and look what happened to them. They didn’t market any of their products and the general consumer had no idea what a Pebble watch even was.

Yes, but the difference is simply that Apple has a huge captive audience, among the media and its customers. Pebble had essentially none of that.

If you don’t market something, no one knows it exists. Seems rather ironic, does it not? That is the point I was making about android wear.

My bone of contention was only the assertion that product placement by Apple is a key marketing tool. Look at how many people alone watched the keynote presentations by Apple. That is not something that marketing can buy. Starting with the cache of Apple (the inventor of the modern smartphone), the Apple Watch got big attention in the media and among end customers without Apple having to pay for any ad (let alone product placement). And remember how Apple Watch sales (of Series 0) slumped after its first holiday season. It was a better product in the form of the Apple Watch Series 2 and even more so Series 3 that spiked sales again.

Android has an additional, structural problem: Software and hardware are made by different companies and even more so for smartwatches where the hardware performance (and looks) still matter more than for phones, there is no unified marketing push.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

What percentage of Apple Watches are sold to Android users do you think? About none, as you need an iPhone to configure the Apple Watch. Meaning, Android Wear smartwatches have a significantly larger market than the Apple Watch. If somebody doesn't have an iPhone, all the Apple Watch marketing is very unlikely to get her or him to buy one.

And yet, Apple still sells vastly more watches than Android OEMs combined. Sure, someone who doesn't already have an iPhone won't be buying an Apple Watch, but people who don't care that much about their phone's OS and really like the Apple Watch might be encouraged to buy an iPhone, not to mention iPhone users who has an Apple Watch is also more likely to buy iPhone as their next phone.

 

[44267547]

Yes, but Apple paying for product placement is not an important part of this.

This I think you’re wrong. Because the smart watch category still very niche market, and how do you expect a product to survive if the consumer doesn’t know or is aware of its capabilities? You have to market something in order to have it successfully sell. My example with Pebble, was that was a failed watch being one of the first smart watches that actually had zero marketing and no one knew about it. So paying for a product placement is crucial in a category that is a superfluous item unlike a smart phone.

Yes, but the difference is simply that Apple has a huge captive audience, among the media and its customers. Pebble had essentially none of that.

Pebble may not have had the following the Apple does because the popularity of the iPhone, which is a direct tangent of the Apple watch. But it doesn’t take away from that Pebble never marketed their products whatsoever, let alone they were not widely available in stores either. You literally had to buy their product off their website. Apple expanded the Watch beyond Apple stores and online into other retailers to reach out with the Series one Apple Watch like Kohl’s, Macy’s and Target. Again, marketing. It all goes back to the same point.

Apple Watch got big attention in the media and among end customers without Apple having to pay for any ad (let alone product placement.

You do realize that Apple announced the first generation Apple Watch in September 2014, six months prior to when it actually launched in April 2015, they had plenty of time and ample opportunity to market the Apple Watch way before the launch. So how can you not say that’s not a direct success to allow the consumer to have direct knowledge of what the product is due to other forms of marketing.

And remember how Apple Watch sales (of Series 0) slumped after its first holiday season. It was a better product in the form of the Apple Watch Series 2 and even more so Series 3 that spiked sales again. .

Don’t you think that’s how technology is though? Naturally, it should be a better product with The continuation of something. It’s a constant improvement and it’s expected. Series 1 was merely a processor increase retaining a lower price point. Series 2 was vastly better over the first generation Apple Watch due to the water resistance 50 Meters, 1000 Nit display, and GPS. Both Series 1 and Series 2 shares the exact same processor.

Series 3 only adds LTE, audible Siri and a larger storage for the LTE model.

 

[nutmac]

So, Google should focus only making software for smartwatches? Not dabble in things like wireless headphones or smart speakers as Apple is doing? A very close relative to iOS is powering the Apple TV and the HomePod, and watchOS is also based on iOS. But if Google is doing something similar, they got it all wrong?

Apple's watchOS and tvOS use iOS underneath, but they are highly customized and targeted specifically for the watch and TV, respectively.

Google's Wear OS uses Android underneath, but it is designed not just for watches, but other types of wearables. When you design something that can be used as many other thing, you lose focus and the product is over-engineered to do more than just what it needs to do.

Can you name a Google Wear OS (or Android OS) device that isn't a watch? Maybe you can, but I bet most people can't. So why not just admit that Wear OS is for the watch and design it specifically for the watch and nothing more?

 

[manu chao]

Apple's watchOS and tvOS use iOS underneath, but they are highly customized and targeted specifically for the watch and TV, respectively.

Google's Wear OS uses Android underneath, but it is designed not just for watches, but other types of wearables. When you design something that can be used as many other thing, you lose focus and the product is over-engineered to do more than just what it needs to do.

Can you name a Google Wear OS (or Android OS) device that isn't a watch? Maybe you can, but I bet most people can't. So why not just admit that Wear OS is for the watch and design it specifically for the watch and nothing more?

Ok, so apparently "Wear OS is designed not just for watches, but other types of wearables" but essentially nobody "can name any Wear OS device that isn't a watch". So, what are those mysterious other devices that on the one hand everybody knows Wear OS can cover but that on the other hand nobody can name?

Are we in the end just fighting over a phrase of "and other types of wearables" that Google has added to the description of (Android) Wear OS that nobody knows what it stands for and that might be nothing more than five words on 'a piece of paper'? Are we criticising Google merely because it thinks that somebody in the future might find other uses for Wear OS besides watches? Are we fighting just over a name or are we fighting over actual code in Wear OS that we know exists and adds extra overhead to Wear OS?