Is Microsoft fighting the wrong battle with Band 2?
Read a few articles that effectively criticized the Band 2 for remaining a fitness tracking device rather than a "fully" smartwatch and not aiming at the fashion forward scene. And the conclusion drawn was that Microsoft had once again chosen the wrong side of history as they had with devices like Kin and Zune.
Are they right?
I'm not sure. And I don't mean that as "no, they are wrong". I mean that as I'm really not sure. My opinion is that the smartwatch category has still failed to be properly defined. Apple's sales are likely higher than anyone else's but that doesn't mean that the device category is well established yet. In fact, the depth of changes in Watch OS 2 attest to the fact that Apple didn't even think their original implementation was complete enough.
Furthermore, signs, to me, point to Microsoft feeling the same way. Why? No licensed watch based OS. Despite producing a number of devices, Microsoft is no true OEM in any field except console gaming. Real proliferation of their strategy is always executed by OEM partners. The fact the OEMs aren't able to get their hands on the operating system and put it into their own watches tells me that Microsoft is choosing to sit in the corner and either watch or perhaps work on a better solution in private.
And fitness trackers aren't really on the wrong side of history either. The market still exists and while is isn't a huge market, that is perfect for someone not heavily invested in hardware in that fashion like Microsoft. They actually stand a better chance of weathering a slow market than a company that generates most of its revenue from this area.
They are also able to build a premium product, which it seems they have this time around, and make use Azure for analytics on a scale none of their competitors can.
Fitness bands also sidestep the fashion aspect to a degree because they are intended to be functional rather than fashionable (a point MANY journalists like to ignore) and which gives them an area to compete where they can actually succeed without the presence of Apple and Google. I would argue that, fashion-wise, Apple is not markedly better off. While a more watch-like face helps (when targeting people looking for smartwatches) and a wide array of bands helps give some variety, at the end of the day there is effectively 1 watch face. All Apple watches look more or less the same. Even with a wealth of watch bands, this doesn't justify the sales for the product. Many watch designers have made arguably better looking watches with replaceable straps that haven't sold as many units. Don't delude yourself, fashion appeal isn't what is selling Apple Watches.
At the moment (from what I can tell based on reviews and forums), is that the typical Apple Watch user primarily uses the device to tell time and measure fitness activities. Battery life on the devices is not at a point where any of these devices can withstand and regular direct interaction and the UX still blows chunks (Google the video of the tech journalist who accidentally purchased an Xbox One on their Watch). Until such time as those issues are sorted out, smartwatches will effectively be relegated to just being glorified fitness trackers that also tell the time.
Looked at in that light, the Microsoft Band 2 is actually making the best of a bad situation in my opinion. By limiting the functionality to what people primarily use wrist bound smart devices for they are able to offer a more predictable battery life.
That being said, companies like Pebble, Apple and Google who build such devices that look like watches, there is definitely more pressure to fix these things. So, if Microsoft isn't doing some very good work in secret, I think they run the risk of being left behind once one of those other watch centric companies finally figures out the right formula.
But, I don't see that happening in this generation of device. I think we are still 2+ years away from a viable smartwatch. And, with that in mind, I don't think Microsoft is *yet* on the wrong side of history with the Band 2.
Like smartphones replaced MP3 players and a host of other devices, I do expect that over time smart watches (or something else) will replace more feature focused devices like fitness trackers. That doesn't mean that those making fitness trackers today are in the wrong or should stop. Right now, I would be unsurprised to find that the Apple Watch helped draw more attention to the category in general helping out not only Apple sales, but also those of similar products like other smartwatches and fitness trackers. And with Band 2, and many others, positioned well under the price of a new Apple Watch, I don't think it hurts any more to be in this industry than it did before the Apple Watch.
Are they right?
I'm not sure. And I don't mean that as "no, they are wrong". I mean that as I'm really not sure. My opinion is that the smartwatch category has still failed to be properly defined. Apple's sales are likely higher than anyone else's but that doesn't mean that the device category is well established yet. In fact, the depth of changes in Watch OS 2 attest to the fact that Apple didn't even think their original implementation was complete enough.
Furthermore, signs, to me, point to Microsoft feeling the same way. Why? No licensed watch based OS. Despite producing a number of devices, Microsoft is no true OEM in any field except console gaming. Real proliferation of their strategy is always executed by OEM partners. The fact the OEMs aren't able to get their hands on the operating system and put it into their own watches tells me that Microsoft is choosing to sit in the corner and either watch or perhaps work on a better solution in private.
And fitness trackers aren't really on the wrong side of history either. The market still exists and while is isn't a huge market, that is perfect for someone not heavily invested in hardware in that fashion like Microsoft. They actually stand a better chance of weathering a slow market than a company that generates most of its revenue from this area.
They are also able to build a premium product, which it seems they have this time around, and make use Azure for analytics on a scale none of their competitors can.
Fitness bands also sidestep the fashion aspect to a degree because they are intended to be functional rather than fashionable (a point MANY journalists like to ignore) and which gives them an area to compete where they can actually succeed without the presence of Apple and Google. I would argue that, fashion-wise, Apple is not markedly better off. While a more watch-like face helps (when targeting people looking for smartwatches) and a wide array of bands helps give some variety, at the end of the day there is effectively 1 watch face. All Apple watches look more or less the same. Even with a wealth of watch bands, this doesn't justify the sales for the product. Many watch designers have made arguably better looking watches with replaceable straps that haven't sold as many units. Don't delude yourself, fashion appeal isn't what is selling Apple Watches.
At the moment (from what I can tell based on reviews and forums), is that the typical Apple Watch user primarily uses the device to tell time and measure fitness activities. Battery life on the devices is not at a point where any of these devices can withstand and regular direct interaction and the UX still blows chunks (Google the video of the tech journalist who accidentally purchased an Xbox One on their Watch). Until such time as those issues are sorted out, smartwatches will effectively be relegated to just being glorified fitness trackers that also tell the time.
Looked at in that light, the Microsoft Band 2 is actually making the best of a bad situation in my opinion. By limiting the functionality to what people primarily use wrist bound smart devices for they are able to offer a more predictable battery life.
That being said, companies like Pebble, Apple and Google who build such devices that look like watches, there is definitely more pressure to fix these things. So, if Microsoft isn't doing some very good work in secret, I think they run the risk of being left behind once one of those other watch centric companies finally figures out the right formula.
But, I don't see that happening in this generation of device. I think we are still 2+ years away from a viable smartwatch. And, with that in mind, I don't think Microsoft is *yet* on the wrong side of history with the Band 2.
Like smartphones replaced MP3 players and a host of other devices, I do expect that over time smart watches (or something else) will replace more feature focused devices like fitness trackers. That doesn't mean that those making fitness trackers today are in the wrong or should stop. Right now, I would be unsurprised to find that the Apple Watch helped draw more attention to the category in general helping out not only Apple sales, but also those of similar products like other smartwatches and fitness trackers. And with Band 2, and many others, positioned well under the price of a new Apple Watch, I don't think it hurts any more to be in this industry than it did before the Apple Watch.
Comments
Post a Comment