The YMCA (a cheap fitness center?) is $44 for a single adult, $66 for a household (two adults + dependents) and $18 for a student (under 25)--that's in my area, yours may vary. Assuming the person isn't going to use that center for just a month but, to get results, for a year...the student and household would do better buying the membership. But the single adult is matching the watch in fitness membership. He/she could buy either (watch or membership) and pay the same. Then again, the student/household will have to pay their fee to the fitness center ($200+ or $300+) every year. If they buy the watches instead of the membership, then the watch becomes cheaper than the membership within three years (that is, if the couple both buy the sports version of the watch).I guess what cheap monthly membership fees of a fitness center couldn't do, a 500$ watch did it for you!
Of course, the gym isn't going to help any of these people outside of it. The gym isn't going to remind them to stand up, or count their steps as they walk, use stairs, help with calories, etc. This is what people mean when they say the watch has helped them get fit or lose weight. Not that it's a replacement for a fitness membership or buying a bike, but that it's been like a personal trainer. A personal trainer reminds you to do your exercises, motivates you to set goals and meet them, etc. So if you're going to compare costs, compare the watch to getting a daily, personal trainer, not a fitness membership.
Of course, this also assumes that the watch is only going to be used for exercise. Which is silly as the watch does a lot more and you'd never use it just for that. Do we add in the other uses in its value compared to a fitness membership?
Last edited: