> I can't afford (or don't want) to pay for both a smartwatch and a smartphone costing >200$USD. In comparison I got my Pebble for 50$USD and it's working great.

I'm not targeting you in particular, but you brought up something that confuses me when people who say this about a smartwatch.

It seems like a lot of people who are getting into smartwatches aren't too aware of traditional watch geekery and prices; $200 for a watch is relatively cheap as far as nice watches go.

I'm not denying that if you want something functional, a cheaper price is always nicer -- just offering up for consideration that watches are traditionally a pretty expensive accessory. :)

Smartwatch buyers tend to look at them as gadgets rather than fashion accessories, by which measure, yes, they're quite expensive.

They can last a lifetime (or more!) though. Smartwatches will be out of date within years.

> I don't believe that people will buy a computer, a smartphone, a tablet and a watch. Assuming that each of these devices remain widely used (as it is the case today) I think that people will make a choice to reach a balance.

> In that scenario, it is easy to see how an expensive watch that replicates smartphone's functionalities would be a commercial failure.

I've thought about this problem for me personally and agree that I definitely don't want all four. I'm fine with three of them, though. In my case, I've decided I'd actually much prefer a smartwatch over a tablet, in the sense that I think a tablet is actually more redundant on top of the phone than a smartwatch. I've actually completely lost interest in tablets over the last year or so.

I had a Moto 360 and there were moments when I felt a glimpse of the genius of a smartwatch. The rest of the time I was frustrated with the incredibly laggy interface, the pixelated screen, the flat tire at the bottom, the general massiveness of the watch, and the extreme unreliability of the fitness tracking options. From what I've seen of the Apple Watch, it's a huge step forward in terms of basic quality, both hardware and software, but I'd have to switch to an iPhone to use one.

The Pebble Time has a quirky appearance, but it looks great in terms of usability and software quality, so I'm definitely excited to try one when I can get my hands on one.

> I had a Moto 360 and there were moments when I felt a glimpse of the genius of a smartwatch.

Adding a personal anecdote to this. The deployant strap on my 360 broke last week, so I had a week of enforced vacation from the 360 to compare before-after and see how much I really liked it. Too tell the truth, I'd actually been feeling kind of "meh" about the 360 and wondering why I really needed it, if I even did.

Here are some things I noticed:

1. Phantom leg vibrations stopped when I got the 360, but once I stopped using the 360, they came back with a vengeance. (I've never had phantom wrist vibrations.)

2. It really is a lot more disruptive to pull out my phone at dinner etc. if I get a call or e-mail from work (devops). The 360 lets me judge things quickly and relatively unobtrusively. Related, I also missed a lot of notifications for people trying to get ahold of me by chat (which I encourage people to do instead of phoning, since I have profound hearing loss).

3. The Fitbit HR (I wear it on my other wrist) is way better for telling time. I can hit the button and see the time faster than the 360 -- this has to change in some way for the 360 to be a smartWATCH.

4. I really missed being able to reply quickly by voice on the go when I wasn't able to pull out my phone.

> 3. The Fitbit HR (I wear it on my other wrist) is way better for telling time. I can hit the button and see the time faster than the 360 -- this has to change in some way for the 360 to be a smartWATCH.

This I find weird with both Moto 360 and Apple Watch - how can those be even considered as a useful watch if they don't show the time all the time? As a regular watch wearer I find it absolutely mandatory that the time can be seen always, even from small angles, without needing to touch the watch or do any wrist movements.

Any normal watch of course does this. Pebble, LG G Watch R and some other Android Wear watches do this.

> how can those be even considered as a useful watch if they don't show the time all the time?

The simple answer for me is that before I started wearing a watch again, I never really wanted a watch. So the reason I gravitated to a 360 is that I wanted the "smart" more than the "watch."

Of course, having a watch on my wrist made me want fast, instantly visible time/date...

The phantom wrist vibrations will come eventually... I get them whenever the leather strap creaks.

>I've thought about this problem for me personally and agree that I definitely don't want all four. I'm fine with three of them, though. In my case, I've decided I'd actually much prefer a smartwatch over a tablet, in the sense that I think a tablet is actually more redundant on top of the phone than a smartwatch. I've actually completely lost interest in tablets over the last year or so.

I actually feel the total opposite... I hate using my phone, and love being on the tablet. At the moment my phone is basically used for WhatsApp and an occasional map search on the go.

I would prefer to have a 4G hub that connects all my devices to the internet. Even better, make the hub intelligent and move all the processing power to it. Then make the tablet and phone act as a screen and it would be perfect :)

> In that scenario, it is easy to see how an expensive watch that replicates smartphone's functionalities would be a commercial failure.

I think in the case of watch and luxury products, this is different. Buyers don't buy watch for the functionality of checking time, but the design, status symbol and other values from luxury goods.

> Buyers don't buy watch for the functionality of checking time, but the design, status symbol and other values from luxury goods.

Well not all of them! Look at the wrists of the people around you. When I do so, I mostly see regular watches. Sometimes some of them have a fancy design but they all share common characteristics which are:

* easy of use; doing one job very well; inexpensiveness

The watch industry is so well established that almost anyone can afford an aesthetically pleasing watch at a reasonable price.

I don't think that people will spend so much money on wearables that are so redundant with their already complicated smartphones.

On the other hand, Pebble have a good product that does a great job at making everyday tasks easier. It's not a smartphone on my wrist, it's just an aid.. exactly like my old watch used to be. As I said above, the watch is solid and pretty inexpensive. IMHO I think that the only missing pieces are: variety of designs available, better embedded technologies.

I will address the case of the "watch connoisseur" in the following paragraph. I will assume (safely?) that they although those consumes have a huge buying power, they are the minority.

They buy watch for their personal pleasure and because they appreciate the often mind-blowing technologies that they embed. A high-end watch is more than a useful device, it is a piece of human craftsmanship. It is both a symbol and a status that has prestige. See Patek Phillipe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGPjFFMD3c0

I don't think that watch luxury brands are threaten by the ave of wearable devices and I would definitely not consider Apple as luxury company. To me they are kind of in the worst position: not expensive/complicated enough to appeal to the collectors and not cheap enough to appeal to "most" people unless they are already loyal to the brand.