There is another aspect to the FitBits as well: They offer the thin little (1/2" wide) step counters that some people prefer. My friend won't use an Apple Watch simply because she doesn't want to deal with big, regular sized watch on her wrist. But the 'cute little' Fitbit step counter helps her join in with her crowd and the step counter feeds her Weight Watchers app.
I don’t know how anyone could claim the smaller AW sizes are big. Plenty of cute straps, too.
LOL,,,, When its more than twice the size, its big. Even the strap of an Apple Watch is considerably wider than the narrow style 1/2" wide FitBIt.
If we’re going to use relativity as our determining factor for what’s big on a wrist, then I’ll cite a gold bracelet — making the Fitbit huge.
Apple Watch wins because it can be worn as jewelry - at any time, at any event, with any clothing. The Fitbit looks only good when you are wearing athletic wear.
Or, the opposite: My friend won't wear an Apple Watch -- which she calls big and clunky. Instead she prefer a narrow style, 1/2" wide fit bit which she wears everywhere to count her steps.
I think Apple recognized that appearance in any wearable would be an issue for some from the beginning -- which is why they initially emphasized fashion and appearance over all else. They even tried to make it a status symbol with a ridiculous $10,000 version.
While they can clean it up a bit, I still have to agree with my friend that it looks like I have a computer strapped on my wrist. The difference is: I'm geeky enough to think that a computer on my wrist is incredibly cool!
If you friend thinks an AW looks like a computer but her janky plastic Fitbit doesn’t, what can we say? Don’t do drugs, kids. I wear the steel Watch with nice leather straps and there’s nothing computer-y about it. Looks great at dinner, the theatre, etc.
The $10,000 AW did it’s job — got celebrities wearing them, generated buzz, and helped make the AW something that normals are completely comfortable with as a hidden-tech accessory that matches your existing style. Pick a material, a color, and straps for all occasions.
I wouldn’t be caught dead wearing a janky plastic Fitbit to a fancy dinner, job interview, etc.
LOL... You would make a good politician. The weaker ones win not by making a good point or by being right, but by disparaging their competition with half-truths and complete falsehoods. Sounds like you missed your calling.
In two years Garmin will no longer make smart watches. And most likely shopping their IP to be bought out or go bankrupt.
2018 Net Income: - $694 million.
It's imploding.
Hmm, awkward post. When I look at their ticker I see they went up from $19 in Dec '08 to $79 now. Their watch lineup is more populair than ever. They are the #1 in the world for sport devices. Expanding their product line, expanding their IP portfolio (Dynastream!)
After 30 years, not 'imploding'.
Are you serious? Runner watches is about as niche a product market as you can get. You can’t build an empire on that alone; see Fitbit and their struggles.
Since that "Niche Market" as you call it is the primary marketing focus of the Apple Watch, it is kind of silly to call it a "Niche Market".
No one should be buying a Series 4 WATCH when the Series 5 gets announced 4 weeks from tomorrow. Faster with longer battery life is reason enough to wait.
When it comes to health and fitness, both devices excel at fitness tracking and offer nearly the same level of detail in information when working out and tracking daily activities. Both the Apple Watch and Fitbit Versa offer heart rate, steps, calories, and workout tracking. They are also both waterproof up to 50 meters. ...
Well, that's only true for casual exercisers.... For serious runners, there is only one: Garmin. In fact, they start our runs by saying "Start your Garmins".
The difference is due to a couple things:
-- The Garmin has "better" software -- mostly because the Apple Watch software is mostly attuned to casual athletes. However, as the article noted, it is aided by the fact that you can install third party trackers on it - Strava is very popular. I use iCardio.
-- The Garmin has an 'always on' face -- The Garmin is controlled by physical buttons which are easier to use while exercising
Plus, for the Apple Watch, once you engage all the features, the battery may not make it through a long race.
Among serious runners that I know, only one uses an Apple Watch -- me! (It's other benefits out weigh its limitations)
I have purchased my last Garmin product. Yuck.
My Apple Watch 4 is a huge improvement over the original. Much longer battery.
What Garmin watch do you have?
My vivoactiv HR lasts 6-7 days, my wife's Apple Watch less than a day
No one should be buying a Series 4 WATCH when the Series 5 gets announced 4 weeks from tomorrow. Faster with longer battery life is reason enough to wait.
My Garmin watch is still the best all-around i have had.
Seamlessly connects to the cadence and speed sensors on my bike, my chest HR monitor when i use it, long battery life - measured in days not hours, and great customer support.
12-15 times a week i will go from walking to running to rowing to bicycle, and the Garmin & its support of BT and ANT just makes it simple. And the battery life allows nightly heart rate monitoring without issue.
Though i still greatly miss my Basis Peak
...Intel's full price buyback after the "burn danger" allowed me to buy the Garmin Vivoactiv HR with no additional cash outlay...
No one should be buying a Series 4 WATCH when the Series 5 gets announced 4 weeks from tomorrow. Faster with longer battery life is reason enough to wait.
Source?
The last 5 years for Apple Watch and the last 12 for iPhone.
Comments