iWatch or iFit?

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by SHNXX, Jun 21, 2014.


iWatch or iFit

  1. iWatch (watch type device with other functions)

    8 vote(s)
  2. iFit (fitness tracker type device with other functions)

    3 vote(s)
  3. Other (specify)

    2 vote(s)
  1. SHNXX macrumors 68000

    Oct 2, 2013
    What type of a device do you want?

    This is not about the name of the device or about judging the markups that designers have come up with.
    This is about the category of the device you would rather buy.

    "iWatch" device category: a wearable device that replaces watches and has additional functions such as tracking various parameters


    "iFit" device category: a wearable device that does NOT replace watches, but instead belongs to the new category of fitness devices, which also has some other functions such as tracking additional parameters

    Which is better for you?
  2. sonicrobby macrumors 68020


    Apr 24, 2013
    New Orleans
    Why not both in one? :D

    Id prefer the fitness, as my phone already replaced my watches :p
  3. Yakibomb macrumors 6502


    May 13, 2014
    Cape Town
    I'd love something like the Fitbit Flex. A pure dedicated fitness device that does not try and replace watches
  4. SHNXX thread starter macrumors 68000

    Oct 2, 2013
    Certainly either class of device can replace both but the design kind of requires a choice: either make it look like a watch or not.

    If it looks like a watch, the wearer will not be able to wear another watch without looking like a fool.
  5. The Doctor11 macrumors 603

    The Doctor11

    Dec 15, 2013
    New York
    IWatch every time. Health vs, smartphone like stuff. Smartphone like stuff wins no matter what
  6. ejb190 macrumors 65816


    Until the iWatch comes out, we're not going to know everything it is capable of doing. And on top of that, I am sure Apple already has a long list of future features that they have been working on that won't make iWatch 1.0 for any number of reasons. Compare the iPhone to the iPhone 5S - some of the newer features HAD to have been thought up and shelved in the original design process.

    For me, battery life is key. I just ordered a FitBit. Should be here on Monday. I came down between the One and the Zip. The final decision was not features, cost, or form factor - it was battery life. I am terrible at remembering to plug in my phones (iPod, iPad, cordless drill, etc.) and rely on my car charger for my work iPhone a lot! I can't tell you how many times I go to work without my personal phone because I forgot to charge it. Now am I going to use my FitBit if the battery is always dead? Nope.

    I am more then happy to give up a few features for a device that is going to do most of what I need and be charged and ready to go when I am ready. And I feel the same way about the iWatch or any other wearable device.
  7. crzdcolombian macrumors 6502a


    Nov 16, 2010
    what ever is cheaper honestly. I don't think either should be more than $200 because that is what the other fitness watches are. The Samsung watch was what $300? Failed real bad. What makes you guys think Apple will fair any better. Fitness equipment is a impulse buy that you never use late on. Look at the marketplace here people basically giving away their fit bits or w/e they are called and the Nike + bands !! Making a smart phone market that was untapped and the future of the cell phone and bringing back the dead watch technology is a big big difference

    Its a niche market they are going to get their usual apple 40% margin but it could be an item to keep people in their ecosystem which is what they want.

    I want it to tell time, maybe get quick notifications, all the health stuff the other ones do. I haven't had a watch since the 7th grade. I don't really know of many people who own one. It needs to be a affordable add on and not something crazy.

    Anything more then 200 bucks what needs to go on it? I don't want to watch movies/videos on it, make phone calls on it. Unless it some how has a 3d screen that lets me watch movies like a projector I don't get why it could possible be more than 200 bucks. I Wouldn't even go that high for it. $150 is probably the most I'd pay depending on what it does.
  8. carjakester macrumors 68020


    Oct 21, 2013

    most of the other brands (fitbit, garmin etc) are hitting around 130-160 so id assume apple would be right there if not a tad more.
  9. Imaginator macrumors regular

    Apr 4, 2014
    The Cosmos
  10. crzdcolombian macrumors 6502a


    Nov 16, 2010
    That is what I am getting at. It can't be more then $200 no matter what it does. Apple got people to buy smartphones. Are they going to get people back into liking watches? Especially if its just a add on to your phone?

    I agree with some people here that battery life is very important but not as important as price. The iPhone might be $600+ but the carrier pays for most of that or was paying it. I will be surprised to see people upgrade every year or every 2 years.

    Now a watch? I hear they are thinking your insurance is going to pay a nice chunk of it which scares me. If your insurance needs to help you pay for this thing what are they thinking $400? :D
  11. SHNXX thread starter macrumors 68000

    Oct 2, 2013

    Watch usage is currently not as widespread as say, phone are, but there are still a lot of people buying watches of all kinds (luxury to affordable).

    But as you said it's probably not gonna be easy to sell watches to people who currently don't wear one.
  12. Kaylor macrumors regular


    Oct 18, 2011
    Long Island, NY/Houston, TX
    I'm not looking to replace a watch. When I was young (like, middle school and high school) the only reason I wore a watch was to keep track of how long I was running while training for sports, and I just wore it all the time out of habit. It was some ugly digital watch, but I didn't really care. Now my phone has replaced any need for a watch when training, because I use training programs as well as GPS programs to track what I do, and they both keep time for me.

    The only reason I still wear a watch is because almost every lecture hall at my school has the clock on the back wall, and I don't like to crane my neck all the way around to see the time, and I don't like to keep my phone on my desk to look at the time, because it's merely a distraction (especially if it vibrates), those desks are small enough as it is, and its rude to the professors IMO. I usually don't wear it when I'm not going to class because I usually wind up looking at my phone for the time (as well as any notifications).

    tl;dr I'm interested in tracking my fitness and activity, don't need a watch. Not that I'm necessarily getting whatever Apple releases, but if it has a watch function on it, it's not like I'm automatically saying "no way! I don't want it now!"
  13. crzdcolombian macrumors 6502a


    Nov 16, 2010
    Watch is going to be an even harder sell for apple then the TV will be
  14. SHNXX thread starter macrumors 68000

    Oct 2, 2013


    A tv is something that costs $500 to thousands and gets replaced every five years.
    This device is going to cost less than a phone (probably.
  15. crzdcolombian macrumors 6502a


    Nov 16, 2010
    People buy TVs they don't buy watches. Who do you know that upgrades their TV every 5 years? I mean my first 2 years out of college I did the bonehead upgrade iPhone, MacBook Pro and TV every year but a lot of people still have the crappy fat TVs.

    Also the tv is going to
    Be at least $1500. Anyone thinking any different. Is kidding themselves. I think closer to
    $2,000 - 3,000. How much is their display that is like 24 inches $1,000? Now a 47-55 inch tv.....

    I mean I hope it's a 4k tv and around 2-2.5k but doubt it
  16. filmanthology macrumors newbie

    Dec 27, 2013
    This is curious: That is to say, if marketed as 'iFit' would that not presumably require some sort of HIPPA release upon purchase of the yet released apple watch?
  17. SHNXX thread starter macrumors 68000

    Oct 2, 2013

    People do buy a lot of watches and comparably small number of other wearable devices.

    Last time I checked, the Swiss watch industry is around 20 billion dollars.

    This doesn't include all the non-Swiss watches.

    In addition, this is supposed to be a new category of devices.
    Before the iPhone, people weren't really buying a lot of smart phones and before the iPad, almost nobody bought tablets.

    So the fact that few people buy watches now doesn't necessarily mean still only few will buy them after the iWatch.
    We will see what happens.
  18. APlotdevice macrumors 68040


    Sep 3, 2011
    I think it's more accurate to say "revive watches" than replace them.
  19. Mousse macrumors 68000


    Apr 7, 2008
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    Pipboy 3000.:D If I'm gonna wear a computer on my wrist, I'm going full nerd.

    What ever they call it, it's still a wrist computer. One that's more powerful than the computer that sent a man to the moon.:p
  20. crzdcolombian macrumors 6502a


    Nov 16, 2010
    Exactly it's a dead tech that needs to be revived but it won't happen if they price it the Apple way.

    TAblet and Smart phones was the future that people didn't know they wanted. Watches are the past that people no longer want. Very different starting point. I for one think tablets are a fad. I have had 2 iPads and barely used either because of my MacBook Air and iPhone do the same jobs but better.

    Only time I ever use it is when I am on a plane or train traveling to a client to read a comic book or watch a movie which I can do on my MacBook Air. Any of the apps I just use my phone.

Share This Page