POLL: SmartBAND or SmartWATCH: Did Microsoft Make the Right Design and Marketing Choice?

[Jason Ward]

Virtually Every other Big Name Player in the WEARABLE's BATTLE has entered the fray with what they themselves categorize as a WATCH.
Microsoft has launched their very capable wearable as a BAND which is a significantly different marketing position in classification and addresses the need of smartphone users in a more natural and efficient way in regards to form factor.

What do you guys think. Whose approach is right? Microsoft's, Smart BAND classification and form factor or the likes of Apple, Samsung and Pebble with their WATCH classification and design?

HERE'S A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE
Who Want?s A Smart Watch? Not Me. Microsoft?s Betting That You Don?t Either.
http://jltechword.wordpress.com/2014...u-dont-either/

 

[F27]

I think it was questionable that MS went with the band style when everyone is talking about smart watches... one's that look like watches! It's going to have a hard time competing outside of the fitness wearable category.

All manufacturers are moving away from the 'band' form factor to the 'watch' form factor because that's what majority want. I guess it's a stepping stone to an eventual full blown Microsoft watch.

Personally I don't want a smart watch, I would prefer a band to complement my proper watch which is what MS has done but I'm in a diminishing minority.

 

[Senrir]

Great choice of wording "band" however 2 days battery life (not including GPS usage) is not enough compared to fitbit charge. Concentrating in the US is not good either since Europe has better adoption rate for Windows devices.

 

[Pete]

Umm. It's a fitness band, like the fitbit etc. and there's plenty of other fitness bands in the market place.

I think it's right that Microsoft have created one as well, it's just more relevant to today's market than simply creating a smart watch. Fitness and wellness is where wearables is heading these days, so Microsoft is right on the money with this one.

 

[DennisvdG]

I have zero interest in any wearable whatsoever, it just seems totally unnecessary to me... Not sure why I'm commenting though lol

I'll let myself out..

 

[Sin Ogaris]

Actually a pretty good idea, simply because it works with everything. So although Apple/Android have their smart watches, even if people buy those smart watches they may still be interested in a purely fitness oriented item, and purchase the band s well, plus I imagine this thing is going to be cheaper than said smart watches.

I really think the aim here is to get EVERYONE wearing these, not just Microsoft die hard.

 

[paulxxwall]

I agree ms could use a classy looking smart watch. The galaxy watches look nice even that rose gold one but I hear there junk

 

[surfacedude]

Maybe Apple will prove me wrong, but the smart watches seem to me to be a terrible idea. I think Microsoft nailed it conceptually. They what what in interested in having a band do. I just don't get the appeal of a smart watch. Anything it could do my phone can do better. The band on the other hand actually makes being another piece of tech out with me with it.

If the band fails, I think it will be because Microsoft somehow shoots itself in both feet or because it simply hasn't won over enough hearts and minds from Google and Apple even though Microsoft is creating products that far superior to google, Imo, and on par or almost with Apple. I say almost, because there are still some slips. For example, the front panel surrounding the screen on the band is plastic. I think Apple would have made that glass and just raised the price a bit.

 

[theefman]

Way more interesting as a band. Current smartwatches try to put a smartphone on your wrist and for me that's pointless, not sure why you'd buy a phone then would ran to buy another one only in mini and infinitely less flexible and capable. And now they come with their own wireless plan? Not for me.

 

[RockmanNeo]

Wish list for the next iteration: curved display and longer battery life.

 

[TachyonicCargo]

Virtually Every other Big Name Player in the WEARABLE's BATTLE has entered the fray with what they themselves categorize as a WATCH.
Microsoft has launched their very capable wearable as a BAND which is a significantly different marketing position in classification and addresses the need of smartphone users in a more natural and efficient way in regards to form factor.

What do you guys think. Whose approach is right? Microsoft's, Smart BAND classification and form factor or the likes of Apple, Samsung and Pebble with their WATCH classification and design?

HERE'S A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE
Who Want?s A Smart Watch? Not Me. Microsoft?s Betting That You Don?t Either.
http://jltechword.wordpress.com/2014...u-dont-either/

So can someone tell me exactly what the hell is the difference between a "smart watch" and a "smart band". Both seem to tell time, both seem to run apps, both seem to have some measure of biometric sensoring, both seem to connect to a larger ecosystem (three ecosystems in the case of the Microsoft Band), both have some form of digital wallet. So from where I am sitting, exactly what is the difference?

 

[JamesPTao]

So can someone tell me exactly what the hell is the difference between a "smart watch" and a "smart band". Both seem to tell time, both seem to run apps, both seem to have some measure of biometric sensoring, both seem to connect to a larger ecosystem (three ecosystems in the case of the Microsoft Band), both have some form of digital wallet. So from where I am sitting, exactly what is the difference?

I would think the difference is the focus. With watches most makers try to make it an extension of the phone as well as having phone app capabilities as well. Unfortunately the tech is not good enough yet and those that can do the most are still quite limited and have terrible battery life. I think MS did a great job and made the right choice as their band can last two days and has features that are truly useful.

 

[nallWhite]

A watch style would fit me better. I'm not wearing the face underside. And hope they come out with a non-fitness watch. I also read that they scratch easily.

 

[slickxsparkie]

I think the band is a great idea. There are so many people who like their normal watches. Lets say I have a Rolex and want a smart thing on my wrist to complement my phone. It's silly to wear the Rolex AND a smart watch. A fitness band is a better alternative. (I don't have a Rolex)

 

[smurfalarm]

Wearing one now, I would say that the form factor works exceptionally well for what it is designed to do. That said, I have no idea if it was the right choice for driving the most sales. I guess time will tell.

 

[several potatos]

It's a differentiation strategy. The other big brands (Apple, Google, Samsung, LG) are touting their devices as extensions of their smart phones. Microsoft is emphasizing fitness so that they come off as different and easily recognizable out of the pack.

 

[mhc48]

I like the Band and the concept and I'm glad that I have one now. I can already begin to see it helping me focus on things I want to like exercise health and sleep. And filter out others I don't want. Like not looking obsessively at my phone because I know I can filter out a lot of crap and still be notified about e-mails from people I want to know about. I think this is potentially only the beginning and that lots of capabilities can and will be added to it and to future models. And I will be comfortable with and know how to intelligently use and integrate it into my life by the time by the time the Band 3 comes out.

 

[AdeptMaven]

They made the right choice for the current market. Currently fitness bands (Fitbit flex and soon the charge, jawbone up, and Nike fuel band) far outsell smart watches. Fitness trackers are a niche market but at the moment smartwatches are even more of a niche. That said I can almost guarantee that a traditional smartwatch is in the works. The key to making wearables successful will be features that compliment your phone. Health and fitness features are the the first way but until someone thinks of something more appealing to the average shmuck wearables will be small potatoes

 

[greyskytheory]

I don't like the idea of the smart watch and honestly think it's sort of a silly concept. I do like the idea of a fitness band to augment my daily watch which is a suunto ambit. I think Microsoft did a good job because this device allows me to turn off all notifications from messaging, facebook etc and use it purely to the fitness benefits. It's a multi faceted device since you can use it for social and fitness activities and also as a watch. Being multi platform I also huge. A friend of mine has an iPhone and I considering the Microsoft band, that's a beautiful thing. Microsoft is doing well with this device and concept and may be able to finally carve their own spot in the personal electronic device area.

 

[Jason Ward]

So can someone tell me exactly what the hell is the difference between a "smart watch" and a "smart band". Both seem to tell time, both seem to run apps, both seem to have some measure of biometric sensoring, both seem to connect to a larger ecosystem (three ecosystems in the case of the Microsoft Band), both have some form of digital wallet. So from where I am sitting, exactly what is the difference?

Thanks for the response. I would say FORM FACTOR, the BAND doesn't try to look like a watch and MARKETING POSITION. Where its being "placed" in the market as a product. What message the manufacture is communicating to potential buyers regarding WHAT the product is, who it is for and what it will do.
In this regard I think Microsoft DESIGNED the form factor, BAND, to FOLLOW the desired functionality rather than "conceding" to the notion, "its a wrist-borne wearable' so let's design a WATCH and let the FUNCTION follow THAT FORM.

So it's true that both designs, BAND and WATCH both share MANY of the same functions, but the question is, what FORM best serves those functional goals?