[gomezz]

It seems to me that a wrist-wearable has to be three devices in one

1) A watch including functionality like stop watch, multiple time zones etc as well as being properly waterproof and shockproof;

2) An activity tracker including heart-rate monitor, step counter, body temperature, gps tracker etc;

3) Mobile phone adjunct with message and other notifications that can still function pretty well if you leave the phone at home.

On top of which it needs to look good at least as a casual-smart accessory and have a minimum 36/48 hour battery life even when used flat out which gives you the flexibility to recharge at some point during each day or so that is convenient.

At the moment there is no one single device that is the best or near the best at being all those things. Maybe give it another two years and see where we are then.

[alanwarwic]

Some companies comment that a wrist HRM is useless compared to a wireless chest one, whilst a GPS is too power sapping for stuff like long distance cycling.

As to shockproof, are you Swiss?

[gomezz]

At the moment yes, a chest-band HRM is needed to give accurate monitoring while exercising but for general health monitoring a wrist HRM should suffice to show trends and I doubt there will be many who want to wear a chest-band 24/7. And sensors should improve over time.

Swiss?

[ShaunIOW]

I can't see the point of them while the battery life is so poor, but they could cure that by using Seiko's Kinetic or Citizen's Eco systems so the battery is charged by your body movement or even solar charging as that can be done in artificial light night.

[alanwarwic]

Yes true, a 24/7 chest band would be both inconvenient and and comfortable.

I think that Galaxy Gear mentioned is good for 48 hours battery and whilst it has a more high end AMOLED screen, the curent Sony Transflective screen watch is truer current high end. (discounting all those actual jewellery like round watches).

Just maybe that Huawei (OLED I think) watch is a true top notch wearable, being both round and with a sapphire face. Though an always on transflective screen might have made it really stand out from the quite average crowd..

[JimothyD]

No, it would be a complete waste of moneyes. There is not one single stand out feature that an Apple Watch for example offers to justify spending money on.

[drabble]

Personally I don't see the point, I haven't worn a watch since my Nokia nk702 (6130) had an inbuilt clock back in 1998.

No doubt some will find a use for them.

[jonmorris]

That's an as yet unmentioned point, that many young people no longer wear a watch at all.

However, I think smartwatches might change their minds quicker than those who do wear an ordinary watch.

Tonight I was involved in a rather large chat with multiple people on Facebook about a surprise gift planned for someone, and I was able to follow the conversation on my watch.

I'm sure there are so many things you can do, some very clever (as Apple would like to pitch) and some extremely mundane - but once you find some things that are useful for you, it's an easy sell.

[Tidosho]

I went back to the convenience of a watch after many years without, time and date are all I need. I wear it for work and it gets a fair bit of bashing about so one question about the new smart watches, are they robust enough for normal use?
Hardly likely you can buy a cover to protect whilst keeping it handy and visible. The poor battery life of the new Apple Watch seems to be it's worst feature too, 18 hours battery life?

[simon69c]

Well after seeing the full price details on the Apple Watch(es), think I'll be keeping my Pebble Time Steel pledge in place for now - insanely good value by comparison, but then the Apple Watch will have a lot more tricks up its sleeve - well for 18 hours of the day anyway! Expect I'll still crack when I see the Apple Watch in the flesh though, plus it will be available a full two months earlier than the Time Steel. Just a question of whether I try to stay sensible with a Sport edition or just go for one of the standard steel models.

[jonmorris]

My Pebble has Gorilla Glass (not sure which version) and is scratch free, despite a few bumps (one or two where I was convinced I'd have ruined it).

So far so good. Nice and water proof (well, resistant) too.

I think most of the watches are water resistant. One exception was the horrid 'I'm Watch' that I was given at CES a couple of years ago. Total, utter, dross and I stupidly submerged it in water soon after and ruined it (because ALL my other watches are water resistant).

Still, it was truly horrid. A watch running Android and trying to be like a phone. Urgh! And now Apple is trying the same thing almost.

[Faust]

What gets me with these watches is the size, I mean how many people have got wrists the size of Arnold Schwarzenegger? On most people they look massive and ridiculous.

Secondly they are being touted for their health apps. Have manufacturers looked round at the size and shape of people recently? All I see are Lardy boys and Lardy girls when I'm out and about. A few so called health apps on a Smartwatch isn't suddenly going to transform those beer guts into six packs.

Thirdly pundits reckon that Apple may shift around 20 million of these watches? That's 20 million people who have more money than sense if you ask me.

[enapace]

I will still sick with either with my Seiko Kinetic Motion Watch or my Tag Heuer which already has more things on it then I use lol.

Maybe in future I will reconsider a smart watch but at moment not for me.

[Everything Goes]

Will stick with my Casio Waveceptor (radio controlled Atomic Time keeping for 100% accuracy). Need it for my work.

[clonmult]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gomezz

At the moment yes, a chest-band HRM is needed to give accurate monitoring while exercising but for general health monitoring a wrist HRM should suffice to show trends and I doubt there will be many who want to wear a chest-band 24/7. And sensors should improve over time.

Swiss?

I've got a FitBit Charge HR. I've compared it to my Polar chest strap, its accurate when running (slowly), did a gentle half marathon row, and it was generally close to the polar. When doing weight training, it is useless. When doing intensive interval training on the erg, it is useless (registers 100bpm when the reality is something like 176).

But it is a great supplement for monitoring the rest of the day. Typically gets 4-5 days on a charge. Works fine when away from the phone, and at least for me it looks way better than the Apple Watch (which has plumbed new levels of ugly).

[gomezz]

I only wear my Polar HRM chest-band when running and check it for three things

1) Resting rate while I am getting ready to start;

2) Keeping within advised range while running (slowing down if it get near the maximum);

3) Seeing how long it takes to return to resting rate range when I am finished.

I am not that sure what else 24/7 HR monitoring will tell me that is useful?

[finbaar]

What is the point if you need to have a phone with you anyway? All of the current crop are ugly. I have several watches (which I don't wear much). An ultra cheap and nasty Casio which has not changed in design for 30 years and some very nice mechanical watches. I couldn't actually imagine spendind decent money on an electric watch be it smart or not - what is the point?

[TelevisionUser]

Smart Watches - will you be buying one?

Unlikely - charging up once a day to once a week would be too much of a nuisance for a relatively small gain in versatility and functions.

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Faust

What gets me with these watches is the size...

For much sport use you really need to see the screen.

With small smartphones being the cheapest phones I suspect manufacturers were wary of bring out an even smaller phone that could be worn on the wrist.

It seems a bit stupid for consumers to have to duplicate function.