Why not get your son an Apple Watch? You can find them for $250. In the long run the Watch is cheaper than the Fitbit because they will last much longer, do much more, and may even save his life.
I can see if Apple includes an LTE radio on the next Watch it would be a HUGE feature for parents. Kids who get kidnapped or in trouble could send a distress signal from their watch.
My problem with getting my kid an Apple watch is that he will destroy it in a couple weeks. I have that problem with all of the devices. Not to mention his grades need improvement before daddy shells $250 out on him.
I can see if Apple includes an LTE radio on the next Watch it would be a HUGE feature for parents. Kids who get kidnapped or in trouble could send a distress signal from their watch.
My problem with getting my kid an Apple watch is that he will destroy it in a couple weeks. I have that problem with all of the devices. Not to mention his grades need improvement before daddy shells $250 out on him.
You should wait for the V2 SS Apple watch, he'd have to work real had to destroy that one; though its $450 so maybe a bit pricey, maybe keep it for you and give it to him in 2 years when you upgrade to v4 :-).
What is it about an Apple Watch that justifies its purchase over, say, a Fitbit Alta for the average user?
waterproofing? No - same battery life? No - worse cost? No - worse Notifications? No - similar user interface? No - worse GPS? No - same (none) heart rate monitoring or step counting? No-same sleep monitoring? No - worse.
It's always the same question. What is the killer feature? Apps that take longer to load than you're willing to wait? Siri? Music? It seems to me that the two most mentioned (and advertised) benefits, activity tracking and notifications, are well covered by these $120-$150 devices.
An Apple Watch is overpriced, but spending $150 on a product that can only use a fraction of iOS is money well spent? Fitbit will love consumers like you.
If an activity tracker is your idea of a replacement for the AW, you were never in the market for an AW to begin with.
I have a Fitbit charge HR and it does what I need plus if it breaks I don't mind replacing it. I charge it about every 3 days and it has kept me mindful of my health. However, it is very utilitarian. If I go to a special function I usually leave it at home. An iWatch is a good substitute for a luxury watch
I find the responses here interesting, given the similar tone responses that appeared yesterday in response to an AI article on claims by FitBit's CEO. What I mainly noticed is that most of the pro-Apple Watch/con-everything else responses are based on hypothetical folks without specific goals or feature needs, whereas those of us that considered the Apple Watch, and I most certainly did; but, decided on an alternate product, had specific feature needs that the present Apple Watch does not address. The typical response to pointing this out is to chastise the observation and observer as atypical and therefore irrelevant (a borderline ad hominem, if you think about it). The reality is that I needed a watch with built-in GPS, overtly stated waterproofing (Apple's claims regarding the first generation Apple Watch's capabilities regarding water exposure are clear as mud when they both advise against getting it wet and also, for specific maladies, recommend washing it water), and notification capabilities. Would Apple Watch's capabilities , on top of those of the watch I selected, be nice to have? Of course they would; but, for me, and for just about every other single member of USA Triathlon, there are more suitable products, at comparable price points.
Do I acknowledge that some customers are acutely concerned with initial purchase price, rather than features or total cost of ownership? Certainly! MS, Dell, etc. all built whole business models based on those customers. Do I claim those people don't matter, or are irrelevant? No. Do I think that every business model must address every conceivable customer? No, that would ignore the opportunity costs of going after those customers.
The main point is that berating someone because they don't need a 33 function Swiss Army knife makes the berator look a bit on the rabid side. Likewise, berating someone because they had the audacity to pick something other than an Apple product looks idiotic and neurotic. I say this as a long-time Apple customer, and Apple Certified System Administrator, and iPhone user. I also keep my iPhone in a LifeProof case, since Apple declines to waterproof the phone itself, and I wear a Polar V800 because Apple Watch can not do the job I need it to do to find a place on my wrist.
Thank you for voicing my views. I'm wearing a Fitbit Blaze right now. I use an iPod touch. When I think about it, why would I want an Apple Watch? It's pretty, it has notifications, and it tracks fitness. However, it costs 100 bucks more than the Blaze, and requires a tethered iPhone. Do I really want to dish out another several hundred bucks for a phone so that I can dish out another several hundred bucks for a watch? Of course, the Apple Watch also runs apps and other totally cool things that some people might value (I know I would) but those aren't needs for me as much as they are wants. The Fitbit Blaze meets my needs for a watch (looks neat, gets all the basic notifications that I need, has even BETTER fitness tracking) and doesn't require (a) a tethered, $500 phone and (b) another hundred bucks. It was a no-brainer. Does this mean that I think Apple Watches are a lousy purchase and only unconcerned, privileged twits would buy one? Uh, no. Why does it have to be that way the other way around?
sog35 said: That's why they made a smartwatch for the first time this year.
IT'S A SMARTWATCH, IT'S A SMART FITNESS WATCH. THE DIFFERENCE REMAINS SLIGHTLY UNCLEAR, BUT, UH, FITBIT SAID SO, SO I...
Uh.
As as weird as I've made it sound here, it is technically incorrect to call it a smart watch, it not running apps and all. I think of it more as a beefed up fitness tracker. Besides, Woody Scal, Fitbit's chief something-or-other, has explicitly said that Fitbit is not trying to challenge Apple with the Blaze (I can grab that quote...) and that they're aiming at a specific market, allowing other companies to tackle the general purpose smart watch.
Here we are: “Some people see this as us trying to create a smartwatch and we’ve been very intentional in calling this a smart fitness watch. It is not a smartwatch. ...We think a silly strategy is to try and outdo Apple and what they’re doing. We want to do something different. We’ll let other consumer electronics companies crack the general purpose smartwatch.” -Woody Scal, Fitbit Chief Business Officer
Comments
An Apple Watch is overpriced, but spending $150 on a product that can only use a fraction of iOS is money well spent? Fitbit will love consumers like you.
If an activity tracker is your idea of a replacement for the AW, you were never in the market for an AW to begin with.
Thank you for voicing my views. I'm wearing a Fitbit Blaze right now. I use an iPod touch. When I think about it, why would I want an Apple Watch? It's pretty, it has notifications, and it tracks fitness. However, it costs 100 bucks more than the Blaze, and requires a tethered iPhone. Do I really want to dish out another several hundred bucks for a phone so that I can dish out another several hundred bucks for a watch? Of course, the Apple Watch also runs apps and other totally cool things that some people might value (I know I would) but those aren't needs for me as much as they are wants. The Fitbit Blaze meets my needs for a watch (looks neat, gets all the basic notifications that I need, has even BETTER fitness tracking) and doesn't require (a) a tethered, $500 phone and (b) another hundred bucks. It was a no-brainer. Does this mean that I think Apple Watches are a lousy purchase and only unconcerned, privileged twits would buy one? Uh, no. Why does it have to be that way the other way around?
IT'S A SMARTWATCH, IT'S A SMART FITNESS WATCH. THE DIFFERENCE REMAINS SLIGHTLY UNCLEAR, BUT, UH, FITBIT SAID SO, SO I...
Uh.
As as weird as I've made it sound here, it is technically incorrect to call it a smart watch, it not running apps and all. I think of it more as a beefed up fitness tracker. Besides, Woody Scal, Fitbit's chief something-or-other, has explicitly said that Fitbit is not trying to challenge Apple with the Blaze (I can grab that quote...) and that they're aiming at a specific market, allowing other companies to tackle the general purpose smart watch.
Here we are:
“Some people see this as us trying to create a smartwatch and we’ve been very intentional in calling this a smart fitness watch. It is not a smartwatch. ...We think a silly strategy is to try and outdo Apple and what they’re doing. We want to do something different. We’ll let other consumer electronics companies crack the general purpose smartwatch.” -Woody Scal, Fitbit Chief Business Officer