Apple Watch is entering the race to become the leader in wearable tech. And dedicated fitness trackers like the Nike+ FuelBand, Fitbit and Jawbone Up may struggle to keep up with Cupertino’s pace.
Few people remember the MP3 players that iPod left in its wake. Smartphones overtaken by iPhone shared a similar dismal fate. Could fitness wearables be next on the endangered list?
For Nike’s digital devices, the answer seems to be yes. A recent update to their Nike+ Fuel app added activity tracking that pulls data from late-model iPhones’ motion sensors, so the raison d’être for the FuelBand is gone. And with a new Nike+ app for Apple Watch, their GPS SportWatch also seems redundant.
Nike enjoys a longstanding relationship with Apple, dating back to the launch of the Nike + iPod Sport Kit in 2006. This involved Nike redesigning all of its running shoes to accommodate a sensor. But in their latest range of shoes, the slot for the sensor is no longer there. Nike’s technology strategy appears to now be software-only, and given their insider knowledge of all things Apple, they might well be a bellwether for the entire sector.
When Tim Cook was asked about Nike’s FuelBand back in 2013, he said, “It’s for a specific area. [As for] the ones doing more than one thing … there’s nothing great out there that I’ve seen. It’s ripe for exploration.”
The future of wearables will be multifunctional.
Even before Apple announced its smartwatch, Cook was making Apple’s strategy clear: The future of wearables will be multifunctional. Like the iPhone, they need to run apps.
This makes a lot of sense. With separate bracelets and headsets for each and every function, you’d start looking like Olivia Newton John assimilated by the Borg.
Fitness app developers are closely looking at Apple’s WatchKit APIs. I know, because I’m one of them. We developed Reps & Sets for iPhone as a hobby project, and we’re busy extending it to Apple Watch (here’s our Kickstarter project).
Apple Watch might be grabbing most of the attention right now, but other wearables also compete for developers’ attention. Most notably the new Pebble Time, which differentiates itself from Apple Watch with a color e-paper screen that is always on and preserves battery life. Pebble already has some big fitness brands on board, including Endomondo, MapMyRun, RunKeeper and Jawbone.
Jawbone’s support is particularly notable given that the company offers its own Jawbone Up wearable. Perhaps they, too, see their potential future as a software-only service, running on third-party devices.
The drawback to Apple’s multifunctional strategy
There’s one major drawback to this multifunctional strategy, though: sensors.
Unlike other forms of software, wearable apps tend to require specific sensors, and there are only so many that Apple can squeeze into the size and price of a watch. The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Apple considered including blood pressure and stress monitoring, but these sensors proved unreliable.
As an obsessive runner (I’ve clocked 11,600 miles on Nike+ to date), I think the Apple Watch’s most obvious omission is GPS. Sure, the wearable will be able to access your iPhone’s GPS via Bluetooth, but this means you’ll always have to take your iPhone with you on your run.
So while the technology inside Apple Watch is impressive, it doesn’t yet contain all the sensors required to replace every single-function device you might want or need. For the time being, other fitness wearables remain in the race.
However, they’ll need to be super-fit to keep up with Apple. The original iPod contained a chunky, spinning hard drive. The first-generation iPhone had slow GPRS data and a single 2-megapixel camera. Those devices didn’t stay that way for long. For the next generation of wearables, the race is just getting started.
Graham Bower is a designer, writer, fitness geek, and long-time Apple user. He is the co-host of Apple Core a podcast about the history of Apple. In his spare time, Graham writes fantasy and sci-fi novels. Connect with Graham on Bluesky or at www.grahambower.com.
14 responses to “Survival of the fittest: Apple Watch versus fitness trackers”
I think it is always a delicate balance between functionality and viability. What good is having a plethora of sensors if you can only get 15 minutes of battery life. I don’t think any of the fitness trackers you mentioned have dedicated GPS much less access to the GPS on your phone and from what I have read, these devices accuracy are an industry joke. So why not take advantage of your phone’s built in abilities. I have owned a Martian, still use a Pebble and most people don’t get it. These devices (Apple Watch included) are meant to augment your phone, not replace it.
Fitbit surge has GPS and is $100 cheaper than the iWatch. Also the display is not color and battery life lasts 5-7 days. Since you don’t have to take it off every night to charge like the apple watch, it will track your sleep. Only smart functions of the Surge watch are being able to read texts and see incoming calls. So for I like mine… would recommend it.
I agree, the surge is very good, although if you us the gps it does greatly reduce battery life, but I still get a very days even with a 2 hour gps run included. with much gps, a 5-7 days is easy.
Derek, Thanks for the info. I just looked it up and now I’m seriously intrigued. You might have saved me $100. :)
Apple now has the credibility and gravitas that IBM had when it entered the PC market. Back then, no matter how good people thought the Apple II was, few people were going to pick a computer sold by a company run by a 26 year old ex-hippie over one from IBM.
Today, AppleWatch will be the no-brainer choice for most people. Even if people like the other guy’s device, there’s always the risk that they might not be around in a couple of years.
Heart rate, calories and mapping are what most people want from a fitness device. If the Apple Watch is priced right I will consider it but my Pulsar H7 and Digit App works just fine.
Don’t forget about 3rd-party BLE sensor use with Apple Watch. As delivered, the Watch can obsolete several fitness trackers, but with 3rd-party fitness sensors the Watch can match any Polar, Garmin or Suunto. Already possible with iPhone. Only element missing was a great watch, Pebble and Garmin Echo were placeholders.
Yes, we have to carry a phone, but that’s okay, even preferred, by those up to serious-casual sporters.
Someone please explain to me why you really need GPS in a smart watch or fitness tracking devices?
Since 2007, GPS data has been used by sport tracker apps and fitness watches to calculate speed, distance and pace. It’s valuable data for estimating progress, workout intensity, calories burned and recovery time, especially when combined with a heart rate monitor and cadence data.
How does that work on a treadmill?
Doesn’t. You put it it in a non-gps mode and it will use accelerometers and your stride length to estimate distance (but stride length can vary based on pace so it generally isn’t as accurate). BTW running on a treadmill sucks… at least for anything more than 3 miles… so monotonous. Most outdoor runners who don’t like to be restricted to known distance loops use some sort of GPS tracking.
Good comments. In addition, the price points are very different: a pedometer is now under $50 whereas the Applae Watch will be 8 to 10 times more expensive.
my only issue with the iwatch is it says you have to press a button combo to get the heart rate reading, I bought the fitbit surge because it is continuous heart rate. heart rate on demand is much different then continuous. Long battery life, continuous heart rate and GPS, in my opinion make the FitBit surge a much better fitness watch.
If you’re happy, that’s all that matters. I just think £200 is too much for a fitness tracker with only basic notifications. Still cheaper than Polar’s top of the line, and that’s what you should compare it to, not Apple Watch which also has an upgradeable OS, 3rd party apps and hardware.