In his TED talk, ‘Bring on the learning revolution!', Sir Ken Robinson noted that most teenagers don't wear wristwatches. On the other hand, those who were we were brought up in a pre-digital era were taught that if one needs to know the time, one has to wear something to tell it. He noted,
“Kids now live in a world which is digitised, and the time, for them, is everywhere. They see no reason to do this. And by the way, you don't need either; it's just that you've always done it and you carry on doing it. My daughter never wears a watch, my daughter Kate, who's 20. She doesn't see the point. As she says, ‘It's a single-function device'.”
Unlike their predecessors, most millennials don't wear “single function” watches but have moved on to smartwatches and fitness trackers. Apart from telling time, these fitness trackers are able to track fitness data about users, crunch it, and provide users with insights about how active or inactive they are.
The main difference between smartwatches and fitness trackers is that the former are mainly intended to help users communicate and deliver notifications, while the latter's focus is on exercise and health.
In this episode of GadgetStory, we tried out three different fitness trackers at different price points to get a better picture of the market. The three trackers are:
We reviewed these devices across categories such as looks and design, quality and durability, functionality and battery life, and found that each fitness tracker had something unique to offer and stood out from the rest.
While fitness trackers and smartwatches have likely affected the sale of watches in recent times, the luxury watch market for analogue timepieces like the Rolex seems unaffected. But companies like Misfit and Blink are venturing into the “hybrid smartwatch” category, trying to get the best of both worlds.