That the Band seemed geared towards wear on the inside of the wrist helped make it feel both more futuristic and more comfortable. And the tile UI was so well suited to the screen size.
I was so disappointed when MS gave up on the Band. You guys did a great job on it.
The whole UI was incredibly well designed for the form factor. The app design guide was a very good read. I also liked how it wasn't trying to pretend to be a normal watch but with a screen.
I dabbled with Android smartwatches for a bit after, but they never were able to scratch the same itch.
Huh? Smartwatches aren't used for "media consumption". I primarily use my Series 4 Apple watch as a watch and heart/activity monitoring device.
I do think the rectangular form factor is better in a watch, but this comment may reveal why Apple is crushing everybody else: they understood the user and sold that user a _watch_ rather than a "media consumption" device.
>> Microsoft Band being worn on the underside of the wrist was brilliant
Another misunderstanding of what watches are about. They're on the upper side of one's wrist because they're also a fashion accessory. That's how you get to charge $450 per unit sold.
1. People who want a tech accessory. Apple does a good job at this, some of the other boutique smart watches do a good job at this.
2. Productivity users, people who want to be reminded of their meetings, have a useful voice control no matter where their phone is at, be able to triage messages as they come in, screen phone calls without taking their phone out, and everyone who has a Fear Of Missing Out. IMHO the Microsoft Band was best of class at this when it came out and kept in the running for quite awhile.
3. Fitness users, these users run a gamut from "how many steps did I take today" to "I train 5 days a week and I want all the data ready to analyze!". Band was originally envisioned to cater to people who had outgrown simple step counters and wanted something more. We weren't a $500 Garmin device, but Band was literally designed for users who wanted good heart rate measurements (chest strap will always be the best), GPS tracking on runs, and a companion for Crossfit classes.
> That's how you get to charge $450 per unit sold.
Garmin sells $500 units that you can take on a week long hike, get lost with, and they'll lead you back out on day 5.
The target audience for those vs the Apple Watch is of course much different! It is a completely different product, the commonality is in some overlap of functionality, and the fact that they are both worn on the wrist.
Or to put it another way, I and some friends, would wear our bands to boxing practice.
Not an Apple Watch use case. :)
This is, apparently, the category that Microsoft wasn't even aware of. :-)
>> Garmin sells $500 units
The question is, how does their volume (and revenues, and mindshare) compare to those of Apple Watch? I've recently seen a statistic that Watch is now a bigger business than iPod ever was.
Category #6 The only watch that I can wear and go to a party full of Rolex guys and still feel more modern.
The Apple Watch certainly skimps on Battery life and can feel unwieldy to wear.
It in many ways, falls squarely into #1. It not being too shabby at #2 and #3 makes Apple Watch 4 the best smart watch on the market, but that is not why it sells.
Apple commands a SUPREME-esque brand value and the first couple of Apple Watch versions sold in millions despite being a clear #1 type of smart watch. ie. a fashion accessory.
Sure, but technology has its limits!
Battery tech is a huge one right now.
But, let's take the UV sensor as an example. The Microsoft Band was one of the first mass market consumer wearables to have a UV sensor on it (there were dedicated devices that beat it to market, barely).
Now UV is hard to work with in that a lot of transparent materials (lens) block it. UV sensors also aren't small, and they need to be positioned in a place that'll get a lot of exposure if the user is in the sun.
That is how the Band ended up with its UV sensors on its back[0]. It isn't pretty, but if we wanted to make a useful sun exposure feature (and we did!), that sort of sensor placement becomes needed.
It took the mechanical engineering team a lot of work to get a precisely placed UV sensor, with a proper lens material on front of it, calibrated to measure UV in a way that is relevant for human exposure, at a cost that can go into a mass market consumer product.
Size is another issue. At launch, Band's main body was actually thinner than anything else in its feature class, but still every reviewer complained about how thick it was!
> This is, apparently, the category that Microsoft wasn't even aware of. :-)
We were aware, but leadership consciously made the choice to not go after that market.
To put it in perspective, Apple has reportedly sank well over a billion dollars into the Apple Watch, they are on generation 4, and yet it is still not a perfect device that does everything for everyone. (And being Apple, I imagine that isn't their goal.)
Honestly technology just isn't there yet. Batteries are too big, sensors are too power hungry, screens are too power hungry, and the electronics take up too much room. (And GPS antennas aren't shrinking much, laws of physics and all that!)
It is like those fold out smartphones everyone wants. Just unwrap it like a scroll.
I've actually seen, played with, screens that you can unwrap. They are super cool. All the technology that goes around those screens, well... CPUs are less flexible than OLEDs.
[0]https://www.alphr.com/sites/alphr/files/styles/insert_main_w...
Along with "transparent" displays you see in Avengers movies, this is something nobody _actually_ wants. It looks cool as a render, but it's completely impractical, and if the product like this existed and someone bought it, they'd take it back to the store the same day and get a refund. "Design is how it works".
may I ask who the supplier of your sensor was in the end ?
To be clear, I don’t mean fitness tracking - I don’t care about that. I mean all the other variables that a device on my wrist could track that could be vital to preemptive diagnosis or explaining a new issue. The need to charge the watch nightly was a total dealbreaker - many of the variables I want to track are during my sleep.
All the other watch features are worthless to me - I have my phone for those. I want a “watch” to focus/differentiate on the things only a device attached to my skin 24/7 can do.
Apple watch is the ugliest possible watch to wear if you want to wear it as a fashion accessory, non-smart watches are fashion accessories. Apple Watch is just less ugly than most of the other smartwatches, but it's still ugly as a fashion accessory
But even if I were to agree, it also happens to be the best looking "smart" watch on the market by quite a wide margin, by far not the ugliest looking watch overall, and the only one that doesn't scream "I'm a computer" at you.
You don't have to run faster than the bear, you only have to run faster than the next slowest guy.
Because that's what it is.
A completely different world from a beautiful watch.
The "fashion accessory" factor is related to the iPhone popularity: it's a relatively expensive status symbol with the Apple boost.
On the flip side, if Apple isn't crushing everybody else, it's because they misunderstood typical users and thought they wanted a tiny phone on the wrist, rather than a watch.
Disclosure: Fitbit employee, but I don't speak for Fitbit. My opinion that Apple isn't crushing everybody else isn't based on any inside info, but on the article below that reported that less than half of Holiday 2017 Apple Watch sales were the then-current model. Most of their sales were discounted old inventory, so usually they didn't get to charge $450 per unit sold.
https://investorplace.com/2018/02/holiday-apple-watch-sales-...
I think Apple didn't really have a strong focus in their original vision for Apple Watch, and threw stuff on the wall to see what would stick; the same was true for users who expected an iPhone on their wrist. However, it quickly became clear what Apple Watch was good for and what it didn't do well, so, recognizing that, Apple Watch has started selling quite well.
The only place where they do any such split is the graph and it shows total number of units sold in 2015-2017.
They understood their target demographic perfectly, and are making a product for them.
They "misunderstood typical users" so badly, apparently, that they sold more watches than the entire Swiss watch industry combined. I wish I could misunderstand my typical users as bad as Apple does.
I'm honestly confused as to why you didn't just buy a FitBit? The batteries last longer, they're lighter and more comfortable, and they're much cheaper.
> Another misunderstanding of what watches are about. They're on the upper side of one's wrist because they're also a fashion accessory.
Oh, I see...
You probably know the "drivers watches" from the seventies, which had the display at the side of the watch that faces towards you when holding a steering wheel (search for "Bulova driver's watch"). I think it would be great to get something similar again for smartwatches. A small display at the side of the watch, showing the time or some indicators. This display would be visible without rotating the wrist and make it much easier to get status information.
In addition there would still be the large display on top. Combined screen size would be even bigger without increasing the size of the watch.
Somehow though Pilots' Watches have survived as a lucrative luxury item. An actual navigator's watch is primarily a stopwatch. The pilot doesn't need much more than a Casio.
Having gone from MS Band 2 to Apple Watch to Samsung G3 to Fitbit Charge, MS Band has been my favorite.
My single complaint was the how invariably the band would begin to break away from the display over normal use. Also, battery life could have been better...
I'd still buy one if MS decided to produce a 3rd iteration. A Fitbit Charge with the under wrist style display would be great as well...
Battery life was provably as good as it could be!
There was one sensor that wasn't fully optimized, working on it could've added maybe 4 or so hours to the battery life (up to 8 if all the best case most optimistic estimates came through), but other than that OS architecture of the Band ensured optimal battery life.
Having that many sensors, and a screen that bright, on a device that small, just sucks up battery.
For what it is worth (nothing!), if the majority of health sensors were turned off, and the Band was only used as for productivity, the battery could easily last over 3 days. That is if memory serves me correct. :) (I'm wearing one right now, but I'm too lazy to turn everything off and come back in a few days to comment!)
Some Cambridge folks figured out how to convert ATP into (extremely small amounts of) electricity [1].
If you had a route from extracting lipids in the bloodstream, to feeding it to mitochondria in some kind of controlled culture, carry away the carbon dioxide, heat and water, then extract and feed the ATP to the aforementioned Cambridge process, then you might be able to power your wearable tech from your bad eating habits. That 5,000 calorie chocolate volcano cheesecake death-on-a-dish now gets a "hh:mm" advertised next to it. Militaries around the world will then be faced with adding more calories to their already-calorie-loaded rations. Corn farmers in the US will rejoice.
Thank goodness that route I described is not anywhere near feasibility in the next several decades. I'm dubious our ecosystem could sustain that kind of demand for more food calories.
All said slightly tongue in cheek...
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/mrs-online-proceedin...
So if your converter was anything but awful, it probably wouldn't be a big deal.
I just meant I value a longer battery life pretty highly. So, something like a MS Band "lite" with a less feature rich sensor package, a 2 tone oled display, and 6 to 7 day battery life would have hit that sweet spot for me, personally.
I really like being able to wear the Charge 3 around the clock for a full week (I typically charge it during my lazy Sunday morning routine) without really worrying about it.
I ended up picking up a Fitbit Ionic (though the newer Versa is now a clear improvement in almost every way) in part because it was one of the few truly cross-platform smartwatches that wouldn't tie me to a phone ecosystem. Windows Mobile support on it is still great, since they use a UWP app on desktop as well.
I actually flip my Ionic around my wrist when in the movie theater in particular (I see a lot of movies), so that it won't blind everyone if I move and my watch decides to light up.
Shame.
Microsoft also seemed to be leading the foldable device trend both with the Courier several years ago, and more recently, the Surface Andromeda, but then inexplicably decided to kill them both and wait for their competitors to beat them to it. I have a Windows phone that runs Android apps as well as Android does but Microsoft decided to scrap the feature. Watching Microsoft both come up with the best solution to a problem and then brutally murder it before anyone can use it is probably the most painful thing to watch in tech.
Just when team X is about to score, they end up loosing management support, thus the product gets canned while others pick up the idea.
It's easy to see and say "this product is costing us money and isn't popular enough", and fail to realize "killing products over and over means people aren't going to try our next one". Long term stable support of a product line, even if it's not a top seller, is what's going to earn you consumer trust.
At least that is what I observe from the local dealers around my me.
So from that point of view Win32/UWP is also a giant app library.
I used to wear a watch every day to uni. It rested on the underside of my wrist, 'cause it made more sense to me. I also used to type a lot on my laptop, which rested on a flat table surface, when I was at the uni.
Every time I needed to type more than a few symbols, I had to take the watch off. Otherwise: KGHRRR GHRR GHRRR GHR-HR-HR, across the table surface, for everyone to hear. Let alone the pressing of damn-near-solid metal onto the backside of the wrist, where all of them good veins are.
Microsoft band looks about as thick as the watch I wore. Looks like it's lighter, its exterior being made of plastic. Must have had some weight and volume, still.
Was that ever in the process of discussion when making a smart watch?
It's a shame the bracelet was so poorly designed. The thing was damn near perfect.
How the entire project fell apart is one of those "If you're in my neck of the woods buy me a beer" stories.
Thanks for the complement on the software. :) Having a chance to help design and build an (RT)OS at that young age and then have Microsoft of all companies, ship it out was an incredible experience. The underlying RTOS has some really cool and innovative concepts in it, and it was the best environment I've ever programmed for.
I might be biased about the programming environment, since I was designed or helped design most of the foundational APIs. :-D
as a tl;dr, 256KB of RAM, complete async runtime, CPU was off most of the time as the DMA (direct memory access) engine did the majority of the work copying data around. The closest modern analog would be programming in nodeJS, which funny enough is exactly what I'm doing right now!
honestly? That's pretty badass. I really liked the band concept and how it tried to actually advance wearables instead of smush watch and phone together.
Other things Band did:
1. Real true type fonts.
2. East Asia Language support
3. Real Unicode (see 1 & 2)
4. Antialiased fonts
5. Real transparency/alpha blending
6. Particle effects engine
30 FPS on a 96Mhz CPU and a dumb framebuffer.
Writing a custom OS lets you do amazing things with minimal resources!
I think a lot of personal preference comes into this. I know some women who wear their (lighter) watches on the inside, I've never seen anyone with a bigger watch to this.
I just remember having a metal wristband that was just a little too loose and the watch body slipped to the inside of my wrist from time to time, and I hated that so much that I stopped wearing it until I got it shortened. It's not much but the weight distribution makes this horribly uncomfortable for me. Also it clanks against the desk while typing :P
The biggest downfall for me was the durability. I had my band 2 replaced so many times because the rubber kept coming away. If they could have fixed that, then it would hands down be the best smartwatch on the market.
Even if a S sized Band 2 was a bit too big (I wear size 6 gloves) I absolutely loved the Band, and yes I wore it on the underside of the wrist.
I only let it go when it got the tearing disease.
Ex-Lead UI developer from the ex-Microsoft Band here.
UX wise, rectangular and square form factors make a lot more sense for the types of media consumption smartwatches are used for. Every time I see a text message clipped on the sides with only 3 lines showing on a huge circular display, I cry a little inside.
Apple went with square-ish for a lot of good reasons.
You can do some cool, innovative, and impressive looking things with circular form factors of course, especially when it comes to graphical displays of data. But humans are very bad at judging magnitudes in pie shape forms, and at the end of the day, a lot of information is textual. This limits you.
> My wife thinks that even the smallest latest Apple Watch is way too large for a watch.
Honestly the Microsoft Band being worn on the underside of the wrist was brilliant (I may be biased). It is much easier to hold up in a comfortable reading position, and the dual body design meant the mass was split across the top and bottoms of the wrist.
The problem of course was fitting all those electronics in a much narrower form factor. The entire device ended up being too wide for some people's wrists. At the end of the day, all those electronics and sensors, and of course the display, had to go somewhere.
In regards to the article, I'm guessing Google is buying a team for the factory contracts, supply chains, and perhaps the ME/EE talent. Having all of that come in one big package is nice, building up those supplier relationships especially can take years of painful miscommunication.