Simpler Apple 'band' style watch?

[satchmo]

First off I don't own an AW. So this is anecdotal info I've heard on MR, and some friends who do own one.
Most seem to like their watch but find it's rather expensive for what it does.
Apps (other than built-in ones) are not used very much.

With Apple's pivot towards fitness, perhaps a simpler, cheaper Fitbit style band from Apple is needed.
It would be great for those who just want steps, calorie count and notifications.
It would be say $159-199 (with and without GPS), 1gb of music storage, and have a week of battery life.
Keep the existing 'face' watch for those who need apps or need to see more data/power.
Thoughts?

 

[verdejt]

I would say that they aren't utilizing all their AW can do. I find it so much better than my Fitbit Blaze. There are ton's of useful apps for the AW. There are numerous fitness apps as well that work great with AW2. If the Blaze was waterproof and allowed third party apps it would outsell the AW quickly but since they are shortsighted they are missing out on that market. Of course all IMHO.

 

[Ffosse]

I don't think Apple is about to go cheap (or more inexpensive) on any of its watches.

The Series 1 is the cheap option for those who don't need GPS or waterproofing.

 

[44267547]

I don't think Apple is about to go cheap (or more inexpensive) on any of its watches.

The Series 1 is the cheap option for those who don't need GPS or waterproofing.

Exactly. The Series one only offers the upgraded the processor. If you are not going to utilize the water resistance rating and GPS features on the Series 2, there's no sense in upgrading to that watch. Being those are the two major features on the Series 2.

 

[Ffosse]

A series 1 would have been perfect for me as I don't swim and take care of my watch near water; but the GPS I really wanted so I had to get a 2.

 

[satchmo]

I don't think Apple is about to go cheap (or more inexpensive) on any of its watches.

The Series 1 is the cheap option for those who don't need GPS or waterproofing.

Sure, but it's not simply about price. Some may prefer not wearing a 'bulky' watch if they had a slim wrist band that just counted steps/notifications. And without app capabilities, it's a big step below the Series 1.

 

[BlueMoon63]

Fitbits stock price is a good reason Apple won't go that route - though I understand what you are saying. People get bored with steps and HR when ilthey don't lose weight and then what do you have? A Fitbit you throw away or in a drawer.

 

[verdejt]

Wow I just looked up Fitbit stock. It has dropped from $35 per share down to $7. I know when I was using my Blaze and reading the message boards there were a lot of unhappy people. Their concerns ranged from no waterproofing and no GPS and just the plain lack of features and ability to load other fitness apps on. If you want those features you have to purchase the top of the line unit which is about the price of the Series 0 AW. I know on the Blaze people really did not like not having the ability to add "complications" to the watch faces plus the limited amount of watch faces available. The other thing users don't like is the way updates are handled. There is no announcement of the updates coming plus of the 3 updates that came out when I had mine 2 of them were pulled because the bricked some units and just plain screwed up others and and the lack of any type of tech support.

 

[satchmo]

Fitbit may not be doing so well, but other competitor's like Garmin is killing it. They have a pretty long history in fitness wearables.

 

[Ffosse]

Sure, but it's not simply about price. Some may prefer not wearing a 'bulky' watch if they had a slim wrist band that just counted steps/notifications. And without app capabilities, it's a big step below the Series 1.

I don't consider the AW bulky at all - sure it's not the slimmest smartwatch but neither is it the biggest.

 

[44267547]

Sure, but it's not simply about price. Some may prefer not wearing a 'bulky' watch if they had a slim wrist band that just counted steps/notifications. And without app capabilities, it's a big step below the Series 1.

Fitbit may not be doing so well, but other competitor's like Garmin is killing it. They have a pretty long history in fitness wearables.

Apple Watch is nowhere near being bulky. If you haven't seen the other wearable technology on the market, like Motorola, Huwaei and even Garmin are much larger than the Apple Watch. If you really want large and bulky, Omega and Tag Heuer would be examples of bulky mechanical watches.

And your claim on how Garman is "Killing it." Garmin really applies to a specific demographic. They do make a great watch, but Garmin usually is applied to those who are seriously into physical fitness and marathons. Apple Watch can also do the same things Garmin can for the most part, but it's more of a general fitness watch, then it is a serious/dedicated measuring device for fitness.

The one thing Garmin does struggle with is their software. Their software is nowhere near as fluent as the Apple Watch. More laggy and stutters more often, but most who purchase Garmin are not concerned with the fluidity of the software.

 

[Dodgeman]

Wow I just looked up Fitbit stock. It has dropped from $35 per share down to $7. I know when I was using my Blaze and reading the message boards there were a lot of unhappy people. Their concerns ranged from no waterproofing and no GPS and just the plain lack of features and ability to load other fitness apps on. If you want those features you have to purchase the top of the line unit which is about the price of the Series 0 AW. I know on the Blaze people really did not like not having the ability to add "complications" to the watch faces plus the limited amount of watch faces available. The other thing users don't like is the way updates are handled. There is no announcement of the updates coming plus of the 3 updates that came out when I had mine 2 of them were pulled because the bricked some units and just plain screwed up others and and the lack of any type of tech support.

Surprised a bit, as people love their Fit Bits.

 

[satchmo]

Apple Watch is nowhere near being bulky. If you haven't seen the other wearable technology on the market, like Motorola, Huwaei and even Garmin are much larger than the Apple Watch. If you really want large and bulky, Omega and Tag Heuer would be examples of bulky mechanical watches.

And your claim on how Garman is "Killing it." Garmin really applies to a specific demographic. They do make a great watch, but Garmin usually is applied to those who are seriously into physical fitness and marathons. Apple Watch can also do the same things Garmin can for the most part, but it's more of a general fitness watch, then it is a serious/dedicated measuring device for fitness.

The one thing Garmin does struggle with is their software. Their software is nowhere near as fluent as the Apple Watch. More laggy and stutters more often, but most who purchase Garmin are not concerned with the fluidity of the software.

I'm not talking about mechanincal watches. I'm talking about relative thickness to band-style trackers like Fitbits and Vivosmarts. Hence my quotation marks around 'bulky'.

As far as Garmin killing it...recent year over year gains of 12.2%, only second to Samsung.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...ss-trackers-holding-steady-with-smart-watches

Just as Apple has pivoted to a more fitness focussed market, Garmin has done the opposite in moving to a more general lifestyle products. But this is not a Garmin vs. Apple discussion. It's whether or not Apple might move into the simpler band-style space.

 

[cmbauer]

First off I don't own an AW. So this is anecdotal info I've heard on MR, and some friends who do own one.
Most seem to like their watch but find it's rather expensive for what it does.
Apps (other than built-in ones) are not used very much.

With Apple's pivot towards fitness, perhaps a simpler, cheaper Fitbit style band from Apple is needed.
It would be great for those who just want steps, calorie count and notifications.
It would be say $159-199 (with and without GPS), 1gb of music storage, and have a week of battery life.
Keep the existing 'face' watch for those who need apps or need to see more data/power.
Thoughts?

I do like this idea. With how well they design things they could really make a killer fitness tracker that is minimal. I totally get what you are saying. Just a slim wrap around device.

I have used all sorts of trackers and watches and the apple watch is pretty slim compared to alot out there. I love the Garmin Fenix 3 for all that it does, but the bulk is too much for everyday fitness. With the apple watch I can still track my Crossfit workouts even if I have to wear wrist wraps over the watch. Works perfect. But I would love to wear the Fenix 3 all the time. Its a little too much to wear in bed as well where as the Apple watch you can barely tell its there

 

[44267547]

I'm not talking about mechanincal watches. I'm talking about relative thickness to band-style trackers like Fitbits and Vivosmarts. Hence my quotation marks around 'bulky'.

As far as Garmin killing it...recent year over year gains of 12.2%, only second to Samsung.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...ss-trackers-holding-steady-with-smart-watches

Just as Apple has pivoted to a more fitness focussed market, Garmin has done the opposite in moving to a more general lifestyle products. But this is not a Garmin vs. Apple discussion. It's whether or not Apple might move into the simpler band-style space.

I didn't just mention mechanical watches, I also used the comparison with other Smart watches in terms of bulk.

That said, your link you posted doesn't show Garmin "Killing" it. And aside from material statistics, the core demographic isn't purchasing Garmin more over the Apple Watch (Subjected opinion). Anyone on the Apple Watch forum can contest the Apple Watch in general is far more widespread than a Garmin Watch. Mainly because, the Apple Watch is proprietary, then consider the popularity of the iPhone and the choice is obvious when choosing something tuned for the iPhone.

And I don't share your view that Garmin has moved to a more "General lifestyle where Apple is more fitness focused." The Apple Watch if anything is more suited for general uses for many tasks. As a matter of fact, the Apple Watch is likely considered to be More of a general fitness device, being it's not entirely accurate and is based more on a general fitness tracker.

All fitness watches are considered general fitness trackers, because none of them can fully be accurate based of a core measurement. Only medical grade fitness equipment can claim this.

Back to your point, you're seeking feedback based on if Apple could/would implement a simple fitness tracker? That's exactly what the Apple Watch is now and then some. You don't have to utilize all of the features exhibited on the Watch. And you applied the term "Bulky" on the wrist. I would say slightly thick is more of an appropriate term. Bulky would be a G-Shock.