Microsoft Unveils $199 'Microsoft Band' Fitness Wearable

[Steve121178]

And Casio too.

Image

I think it remains to be seen where this product category will end up. The way I see it Apple's ambitions seems higher.



Why?

Because it does exactly what a health/fitness band should do.

Because it's not restricted to certain iPhone's.

Because it works with pretty much anything with Bluetooth connectivity.

Because the battery life is twice as good as Apple Watch.

Because it's priced at a very acceptable level.

And most importantly of all, it's designed to be functional and doesn't look like a bulky awkward mess like the Apple Watch does.

Don't get me wrong, I still have no use for this device either, but this is precisely the kind of device I would have expected Apple to have engineered with the whole health & fitness push, especially with Apple having Nike on-board.

 

[subsonix]

Because it does exactly what a health/fitness band should do.

Because it's not restricted to certain iPhone's.

Because it works with pretty much anything with Bluetooth connectivity.

Because the battery life is twice as good as Apple Watch.

Because it's priced at a very acceptable level.

And most importantly of all, it's designed to be functional and doesn't look like a bulky awkward mess like the Apple Watch does.

Don't think of it as merely a health/fitness band, but a computer on your wrist.

Bluetooth doesn't mean that some gadget will automagically work, it needs software support on both ends.

Battery life on the Casio is measured in years, you have to weigh in capabilities.

 

[xDKP]

Looks a little like fitbit. I may be tempted but I do want something that integrates with my iPhone.

It does...

 

[Wiesenlooser]

Does the fitness band have audio playback funtionality? Like over bluetooth?

 

[Chupa Chupa]

...how comes they were able to keep a lid on this more tightly than Apple re the watch? Is it because no-one cares?

Microsoft said they were coming out with an activity band weeks ago -- maybe it was longer time moves so fast. But to be sure, no one cared up until the announcement because of low expectations. MS has such a poor record pushing out boring or just plain bad CE products. Even the Xbox One they botched at introduction with its crazy restrictions.

But I think with Apple's watch not being a home run (maybe a triple with one out and a couple of .270 batters up next), Fitbit slacking off with its competing Charge HR and Surge not being available until Jan/Feb, Microsoft may have caught the competition off guard with a decent product here. I know I'm interested, and I usually fall asleep at the word "Microsoft."

One thing I didn't even catch the first time that's a major selling point to me: Build-in GPS chip!

This feature is massive to everyone biking, running etc. that doesn't want to have their iPhones on their arms the entire time. GPS is one of the biggest missing features of the Apple Watch in my view. I'm not going to get a digital watch that's not even able to be a proper sports watch.

Yes! That + the HR sensor is "sold" me to give it a look too. Plenty of GPS bands/watches, but not too many GPS and HR bands. Now just to test if both are accurate.

I wanted a Fitbit Charge HR that was just announced. I went to order and saw Fitbit was just teasing or actually dropped the ball and it won't be out until Jan/Feb. So if the MS band isn't too clunky, I'm not waiting around for Fitbit, esp. since it won't support Healthkit either.

 

[Steve121178]

Don't think of it as merely a health/fitness band, but a computer on your wrist.

Bluetooth doesn't mean that some gadget will automagically work, it needs software support on both ends.

Battery life on the Casio is measured in years, you have to weigh in capabilities.

There's never been a market for a 'computer on your wrist' because to be frank it's a stupid idea. Any information the Apple Watch can give me is just a duplicate of what I have on my phone so why would I bother looking at a daft 2.5" screen when I can just whip my iPhone out my pocket?

Apple has created a product for a very niche market. A market that no one has taken seriously because the consumer doesn't care about it. Have you seen all the really awful Android based wearable devices? They sold appallingly and so how will a vastly more expensive Apple Watch do? It's a product that no one really wants or needs. It's also too expensive and you should know as well as I do that the cheap base models are going to be really crap (cheap rubber straps, small display etc). The more desirable Apple Watches are going to cost well north of $800.

 

[OllyW]

Because it does exactly what a health/fitness band should do.

Not exactly what a health/fitness band should do, it isn't waterproof which will rule it out for many people. (And yes, I know the Apple Watch isn't either).

 

[subsonix]

There's never been a market for a 'computer on your wrist' because to be frank it's a stupid idea. Any information the Apple Watch can give me is just a duplicate of what I have on my phone so why would I bother looking at a daft 2.5" screen when I can just whip my iPhone out my pocket?

There's never been a market for a computer on the wrist because the capabilities were not there. As I said in the first post, it remains to be seen where this product category will end up. I'll wait at least six month to a year after it's been out on the market with the emergence of 3rd party applications before I have a definite answer. That's the difference here, you seem dead set on your opinion even though you haven't tried any of the products and haven't seen any of them in use or what application will come.

 

[orange.x]

I'm curious how long that GPS is running before the battery ran out. It would be a nice tacking device if Strava would be compatible too. I read Runkeeper is at the moment, so my guess is Strava will be compatible maybe later on, or from start.

And what is the accuracy of the GPS. Also a bit important offcourse

 

[kodos]

There's never been a market for a computer on the wrist because the capabilities were not there. As I said in the first post, it remains to be seen where this product category will end up. I'll wait at least six month to a year after it's been out on the market with the emergence of 3rd party applications before I have a definite answer. That's the difference here, you seem dead set on your opinion even though you haven't tried any of the products and haven't seen any of them in use or what application will come.

I do think you can be cautiously pessimistic of the Apple Watch however. When iPhone was announced, everyone suddenly saw the great advantages of being able to surf the web from wherever they may be, and how multitouch would change the way they interacted with a computer in a phone formfactor.

It was pretty obvious when the iPhone was launched that something new had just changed computing (at least it was to me: most people started harping about the price and lack of custom apps). It was easy to see how this thing could fit your lifestyle.

It isn't obvious to me how the Apple Watch does the same thing. It's not a particularly good fitness tool (requires an iPhone tethered in order to have GPS tracking for one, second it is too much jewelry to be a good fitness companion, and too expensive to replace whenever you take a tumble running or biking), and it isn't clear how the watch apps are of any use.

Plus, we've had the Galaxy Gear and Android Wearables which do most of the same things already, to prove the proof of concept. What is Apple doing that is new in this space? I'm not too sure other than the Digital Crown?

So I think cautious pessimism is warranted. Plus, this is the first new product category launch under the "New Steve-less Apple", and my confidence is high that they can launch things with high profit margins. Low that they can do anything much innovative.

 

[andiwm2003]

I usually think fitness bands are a gimmick but this starts to look really interesting. Watch, HR and GPS tracking and getting sleep tracking makes this interesting.

Nice to see that Microsoft comes out with a focussed useful product that does what other products were missing. And the price is reasonable. I see lots of them sold as x-mas presents.

Only drawback is it's not water proof and the 48hr battery life is a bit short.

Does anybody know if the GPS tracking (when wearing the band without phone) can transfer the data later on to a computer and allows creating a path overlaid on an actual map?
I hope also one can export the GPS data and link them to pictures taken.

 

[bitslap47]

Microsoft gets my money on this one.

I never got the watch idea and truly thought in the back of my mind that there was no way Apple would make a watch. I was convinced they were designing what Microsoft just released.

Hopefully Apple follows through on their "not first, but better" mantra, and rips off the Microsoft Fitness band and does it better in the near future.

Really really happy to see the competition in this area. Can't wait to see Apple invest a couple billion in this space.

 

[whiteboytrash]

There's never been a market for a 'computer on your wrist' because to be frank it's a stupid idea. Any information the Apple Watch can give me is just a duplicate of what I have on my phone so why would I bother looking at a daft 2.5" screen when I can just whip my iPhone out my pocket?

Apple has created a product for a very niche market. A market that no one has taken seriously because the consumer doesn't care about it. Have you seen all the really awful Android based wearable devices? They sold appallingly and so how will a vastly more expensive Apple Watch do? It's a product that no one really wants or needs. It's also too expensive and you should know as well as I do that the cheap base models are going to be really crap (cheap rubber straps, small display etc). The more desirable Apple Watches are going to cost well north of $800.

So all those people walking around bumping into me because they're staring at their phones is a good idea?

If you gave them a device with haptic feedback meaning they wouldnt have to take their eyes off the sidewalk/road etc. that would be a bad idea?

Not following that logic!

 

[flottenheimer]

Probably a very nice fitness device.

But –no way– would I wear this on my wrist in everyday settings. It somehow reminds me of one of those geeky Bluetooth earpieces.

 

[Steve121178]

Not exactly what a health/fitness band should do, it isn't waterproof which will rule it out for many people. (And yes, I know the Apple Watch isn't either).

So a very niche amount of users of a very niche product? I think I can see why they haven't bothered waterproofing with v1.0.

 

[subsonix]

So I think cautious pessimism is warranted. Plus, this is the first new product category launch under the "New Steve-less Apple", and my confidence is high that they can launch things with high profit margins. Low that they can do anything much innovative.

Maybe, but if you have seen the S1 you would be hard pressed to claim that isn't innovation. If the product will find an appealing use to consumers is a question which isn't really related to innovation per se. Cautious pessimism is warranted, but also cautious optimism, so perhaps a good balance is to remain cautious about the final fate of this thing before it's even released.

 

[maflynn]

It does...

I just noticed - so I'll have to take a close look at this bad boy

 

[Steve121178]

So all those people walking around bumping into me because they're staring at their phones is a good idea?

If you gave them a device with haptic feedback meaning they wouldnt have to take their eyes off the sidewalk/road etc. that would be a bad idea?

Not following that logic!

Stupid people will always be stupid. If they are too idiotic to take notice of their surroundings then no amount of technology will help them. However, I think you are trying to create a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[saihaynes]

It should do all of those things! Why are you so closed minded?

I think it's a question of usability rather than close mindedness.......

 

[maflynn]

I have to say after watching some of the videos on MS, I'm rather impressed. I find this probably more useful then Apple Watch and less expensive, though not by much at 199. The added GPS and 2 day battery life are also advantages it has over the Apple Watch. I was thinking of getting a fitbit, but this may be better.

 

[Anim]

I'm assuming you all have seen the video showing this watch off??
http://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-band/en-us

Having the watch under your wrist would certainly save me getting wet in the pub get it? get it? arf arf

 

[luigi408]

I hope Apple comes out with a fitness/watch band too. Something separate from the Apple Watch. I don't want to see my picture or other crazy apps. I just want my basic phone information like text, calls, and music control plus all the fitness monitoring sensors it can have. Why would I want to show someone a picture on my watch? Or do anything else on my watch when I can pull out my iPhone? I mean you need your iPhone near you to do pretty much anything. So... Why would I pick my watch to do something my iPhone can do better a million times?

Personally I like the Apple Watch look but I was hoping for a cleaner and simple interface with fitness and long battery life.

Unless there is a miracle battery tech one day... The Apple Watch cannot be useful as Apple wants it to be. That is why I would like a fitness band better for now from Apple.

 

[kodos]

I have to say after watching some of the videos on MS, I'm rather impressed. I find this probably more useful then Apple Watch and less expensive, though not by much at 199. The added GPS and 2 day battery life are also advantages it has over the Apple Watch. I was thinking of getting a fitbit, but this may be better.

It is probably around half the price of an Apple Watch which "starts" at $349. My hunch is that most people will feel the need to get a slightly more expensive version of the Watch since it is a fashion accessory, get the appropriate strap, etc.

Since this thing doesn't make any pretensions as to being a piece of jewelry, or fashion accessory, $200 is all you will spend on it (discounting any optional accessories).

 

[gorkt]

This caught me by surprise, and really intrigues me. I think I am going to stop by the Microsoft store and take a look.

It has a surprising amount of functionality and works with the Apps I used on my phone for fitness monitoring, Runkeeper and my fitnesspal.

I wouldn't compare it to Apple watch necessarily, because there is definitely no fashion involved here. I would compare it more to a Garmin or other sports/fitness watch, and in that category, if it actually works well, it is definitely extremely competitive. Heck, I am kicking myself for buying a MIO a few months ago. That thing was $99 and only tracks heart rate. This thing has 10X the functionality for 2X the price.

I may take it for a spin to see if it is comfortable, accurate on my runs, and integrates well with the iphone.

Microsoft is definitely becoming more interesting lately - the Surface Pro 3 is a nice design. If I needed a low profile laptop, I would pick the Pro 3 over a Mac Air. I am glad to see Microsoft doing some interesting things.

 

[Steve121178]

It is probably around half the price of an Apple Watch which "starts" at $349. My hunch is that most people will feel the need to get a slightly more expensive version of the Watch since it is a fashion accessory, get the appropriate strap, etc.

My hunch is people will see the price of the base model, realise it's gimped compared to the more expensive models displayed next to it. Then look at the price of the more desirable watches & walk away.