Runtastic debuts Moment smartwatch, combining analog face & fitness tracking

Posted:
in iPhone edited September 2015
Runtastic on Friday launched the Moment, a new smartwatch that employs a traditional analog watch face but with smartphone-connected fitness tracking.




The device monitors data like steps, distance, sleep, calories burned, and goal progress, syncing the data automatically via Bluetooth with Runtastic's apps for iPhone, Android, and Windows Phone. Any iPhone from the iPhone 4s onwards should be supported.

Though the Moment is built to resemble conventional watches, it also includes an LED indicator, a goal progress dial, and vibration functions. The latter can be used for things like setting a silent alarm or reminders to get up and move around.

The device runs on a six-month lithium battery, and unlike many smartwatches and fitness trackers is also waterproof to a depth of 300 feet, allowing it to track swimming.

The Moment comes in Elite, Classic, Basic and Fun lines, which mostly determine the style of the watchface and available colors. The Basic and Fun are $129 each, while the Elite and Classic options are $179.

All models are available to buy starting today, but Runtastic says that demand has already delayed shipping by three to six weeks.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,071member
    Not for me (as notifications, world time, alarm etc. are my most used features), but a decent design and likely a good fit for those whose activities include swimming and diving, something the Apple Watch is admittedly useless at (even putting it somewhere safe when jumping into a pool or ocean is a chore). And if it does work as advertised, the price is ok, too.
  • Reply 2 of 15
    Microsoft has some competition!
  • Reply 3 of 15
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,134member
    Sounds like a fitness tracker not a smart watch.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    Makes AppleWatch seem inexpensive in comparison.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    "waterproof to a depth of 300 feet"

    Fine print: [SIZE=0]one time[/SIZE]
  • Reply 6 of 15
    I used to think that this kind of product was what I wanted...but I bought an Apple watch and I enjoy getting notifications and other data on my watch screen.

    I guess if battery life was dramatically better (months vs days) than it would be pretty awesome.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    larryalarrya Posts: 548member
    This just a watch combined with a basic FitBit. Not sure how they can call it a smart watch.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    indyfxindyfx Posts: 319member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by schlack View Post



    I used to think that this kind of product was what I wanted...but I bought an Apple watch and I enjoy getting notifications and other data on my watch screen.



    I guess if battery life was dramatically better (months vs days) than it would be pretty awesome.



    Two different products, it's like comparing a  Datsun to an Aston Martin, both nice cars but I don't see them competing.

     

    Ok... after looking at someone actually wearing the runtastic moment -it is dead in the water-. Stupid oversized hipster looking watch, and not really a smartwatch. Only the profoundly confused would possibly buy them.

     

    http://icdn2.digitaltrends.com/image/runtastic-moment-19-440x292-c.jpg

  • Reply 9 of 15
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,071member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by IndyFX View Post

     

    Ok... after looking at someone actually wearing the runtastic moment -it is dead in the water-. Stupid oversized hipster looking watch, and not really a smartwatch. Only the profoundly confused would possibly buy them.

     

    http://icdn2.digitaltrends.com/image/runtastic-moment-19-440x292-c.jpg


     

    It has a diameter of 46 mm, which is pretty much a regular size for men's chronographs and sport watches. Not oversized in general, but certainly too much for the dwarf in that picture.

  • Reply 10 of 15
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,448member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post



    Not for me (as notifications, world time, alarm etc. are my most used features), but a decent design and likely a good fit for those whose activities include swimming and diving, something the Apple Watch is admittedly useless at (even putting it somewhere safe when jumping into a pool or ocean is a chore). And if it does work as advertised, the price is ok, too.

     

    Notifications aren't the primary reason I bought the ?Watch, in fact I don't even plan to ever wear it to work. And it does mention vibrations built-in for silent alarms. But, it doesn't have ?Pay and that's the main reason I chose an ?Watch over something else.

     

    This is pretty much where I expect the traditional watchmakers to go first -- adapting traditional timepieces which most consider as jewelry first, into semi-smart watch hybrids which will satisfy many people's needs. I think adding fitness sensors, NFC chips, and bluetooth radios  for things like contactless payments, unlocking doors and starting cars, will be something that will keep the traditional wristwatch alive for many years to come. 

     

    It's really only when the ?Watch no longer needs the iPhone that the traditional watchmakers will be in trouble, as people will no longer need to carry their phones with them from which they can get notifications and the like. But who knows what kind of tech they will devise at that point. Indeed the entire idea of a wristwatch as a wearable may be completely diluted by wearables of all kinds, and traditional wristwatches will continue as jewelry. 

  • Reply 11 of 15
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,071member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

     

    This is pretty much where I expect the traditional watchmakers to go first -- adapting traditional timepieces which most consider as jewelry first, into semi-smart watch hybrids which will satisfy many people's needs. I think adding fitness sensors, NFC chips, and bluetooth radios  for things like contactless payments, unlocking doors and starting cars, will be something that will keep the traditional wristwatch alive for many years to come. 

     

    It's really only when the ?Watch no longer needs the iPhone that the traditional watchmakers will be in trouble, as people will no longer need to carry their phones with them from which they can get notifications and the like. But who knows what kind of tech they will devise at that point. Indeed the entire idea of a wristwatch as a wearable may be completely diluted by wearables of all kinds, and traditional wristwatches will continue as jewelry. 


     

    I don't see traditional watches going away, especially not the high end. People buy them as a statement of fashion and/or status, or because they admire the mechanical qualities. No smart watch will satisfy all of these needs and all different tastes. They won't replace the cheapest end either. Most of the approx. 1 billion watches sold annually are clearly below $100, most of them even below $50.

     

    The category is new and many questions are unanswered. Most fitness trackers are too ugly to wear them all day, but a lot of health and activity data is only meaningful, if it is measured continuously. Using two devices you end up with data in different apps, or even different ecosystems... (heck, even wearing an Apple Watch Sport for fitness activities and a steel one for work is not exactly supported). Then there is the question of cost and demand for many potential functions. Do I even want to pay for GPS in my watch, do I want to pay for glucose metering when I have no problem with it (and do I want the battery impact of functions I do not need)... etc ad inf. I do not know the answer to any of these.

     

    For now I am more than happy with Apple's first attempt. The design is right (for me), and most things work incredibly well. The lag of most third party apps should be addressed by the updated OS and updated apps. Would a more autonomous watch be better? Yeah. But then, the only time I do not have my phone with me is when swimming or in the sauna... More battery life and better apps might be more important for me for now. No idea what I will think a few years from now though.

  • Reply 12 of 15
    pistispistis Posts: 247member
    dreyfus2 wrote: »
    I don't see traditional watches going away, especially not the high end. People buy them as a statement of fashion and/or status, or because they admire the mechanical qualities. No smart watch will satisfy all of these needs and all different tastes. They won't replace the cheapest end either. Most of the approx. 1 billion watches sold annually are clearly below $100, most of them even below $50.

    The category is new and many questions are unanswered. Most fitness trackers are too ugly to wear them all day, but a lot of health and activity data is only meaningful, if it is measured continuously. Using two devices you end up with data in different apps, or even different ecosystems... (heck, even wearing an Apple Watch Sport for fitness activities and a steel one for work is not exactly supported). Then there is the question of cost and demand for many potential functions. Do I even want to pay for GPS in my watch, do I want to pay for glucose metering when I have no problem with it (and do I want the battery impact of functions I do not need)... etc ad inf. I do not know the answer to any of these.

    For now I am more than happy with Apple's first attempt. The design is right (for me), and most things work incredibly well. The lag of most third party apps should be addressed by the updated OS and updated apps. Would a more autonomous watch be better? Yeah. But then, the only time I do not have my phone with me is when swimming or in the sauna... More battery life and better apps might be more important for me for now. No idea what I will think a few years from now though.

    The only reason I bought a apple watch is because I'm an apple fan boy with more money than sense and I love showing off. It's really just an expensive toy, I admit it's cool to be able to get info without having to fish out my iPhone out of my jeans pocket. And I can pay at trader joes and look even cooler with it . Apart from that it's not really doing much for me. Look forward to faster native apps in a few weeks and have it display time beside my bed, big fecking deal!
  • Reply 13 of 15
    pistispistis Posts: 247member
    Microsoft has some competition!
    Microsoft sells a watch really?
  • Reply 14 of 15
    indyfxindyfx Posts: 319member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pistis View Post





    The only reason I bought a apple watch is because I'm an apple fan boy with more money than sense and I love showing off. It's really just an expensive toy, I admit it's cool to be able to get info without having to fish out my iPhone out of my jeans pocket. And I can pay at trader joes and look even cooler with it . Apart from that it's not really doing much for me. Look forward to faster native apps in a few weeks and have it display time beside my bed, big fecking deal!



    You own an iPhone and and an apple watch? And I suppose you have also owned 14 Mac's starting with a 512k FatMac, eh?

    Why did you write that? Its just a complete waste. It wasn't really clever satire, and if it was a serious attempt at trolling you can't believe you garnered much (any) credibility with opening statements like "I'm an apple fan boy with more money than sense and I love showing off" can you?

  • Reply 15 of 15
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pistis View Post



    Microsoft sells a watch really?



    That depends on how narrowly you define "watch."

    If by "watch" you mean a wrist-worn device that can display the current time, then yes, Microsoft sells a watch.

Sign In or Register to comment.