> Xiaomi, Huawei, and Huami have really taken the wearables market by storm

You link to a press release. Are there actual sales numbers to back that claim up? Because all I see out in the real world are Apple watches and Fit Bits.

> I hope the rumoured Pixel Wearable isn't comically expensive like its Phone counterparts.

The Apple Watch Series 3 is available on apple.com for $199.

> Because all I see out in the real world are Apple watches and Fit Bits.

Which world? USA? Apple Watch doesn't work outside the Apple ecosystem, and Apple doesn't own the majority of the smartphone market.

Stats for Europe, 2019 https://www.gizmochina.com/2019/10/21/smart-wearables-market...

Apple was pretty stable, Fitbit lost half its market share (to Garmin, looks like), the rest was more or less stable.

I think they mean in the US (which obviously is not the whole world) Here in the US the iPhone is more than 50% market share (likely much higher, if you were to count hours of use rather than just raw devices. Many mid-range android users own one simply because it’s what the company told them to buy and they “just wanted a phone” while low end android devices lack battery life.) In the wearables market in the US, Garmin exclusively sells to hardcore fitness fans. They really are a niche company, (a very profitable niche, with high selling prices). In that context, yep, all you see are Fitbits and Apple watches. Fitbit is seen as the “android” of the smart watch world, which is quite funny as wearOS has become DOA.

Here in my part of Australia apple watches are pretty rare, but I see a lot of more general fitness trackers, and plenty of Garmin watches. When I was in SF for work recently it seemed like every second person had an apple watch.

In the US, iPhone market share is 41%.

Garmin sells a wide range of fitness trackers, only some of which are targeted to hardcore athletes. They have other models for casual users or those who care more about style.

But 83% among teens (still ticking up) as of October 2019

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191008005671/en/Pip...

I Brazil I just see Mi Bands. Apple watches are just for who wants to display they have money.

> Many mid-range android users own one simply because it’s what the company told them to buy and they “just wanted a phone” while low end android devices lack battery life.)

It's ironic that you're totally inverted here. Most of the iPhone owners I know were given one by their company. It's the corporate standard so businesses which deal in phones hand them out.

I've actually never met someone with an Android device issued through their company. Literally 100% of the corporate phone users I know use iPhone!

Either your anecdote is the exact opposite of mine, or you're trying to create a narrative here that isn't really true.

P.S. Apple hasn't broken 50% marketshare in many years. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...

If you count browser stats, https://www.statista.com/statistics/272664/market-share-held..., then Apple barely cracks 50% in the US.

Based on your 'cavalier' understanding of the statistics I have to assume your storytelling here is as grounded in reality as your data!

> Apple doesn't own the majority of the smartphone market

They don't have to? Most people who pay for an iPhone already have bought into the ecosystem and are willing to pay a lot for Apple items (ear pods). Those people also would likely be more willing to buy wearables, so it's quite likely that they have a large stake in the wearable market (as your data shows). Most people who buy phones don't have the resources to buy accessories (like a wearable).

Even what you linked was 40% Apple, that's a huge market share for wearables (which is what you see in public). Not the majority, but probably enough that a person can say "it's all all see in the real world". Especially, if you are from a more affluent area, where locally it may be the majority.

"Which world? USA? Apple Watch doesn't work outside the Apple ecosystem, and Apple doesn't own the majority of the smartphone market."

Your own numbers show that apple is the leader of the market by far. However I agree that they don't own the whole sector

Garmin has surprisingly good offerings in the smartwatch space too

I love my Garmin. The always-on display, week long battery life, the vast variety of well-designed watch faces, and the movement prompts (with thresholds for when one has moved adequately) are really golden. My only criticism for it is the clunky charger.

My Garmin watch has been excellent for 5 years now. It records runs accurately, stays out of the way, and holds a charge for several hours of running. It didn't cost much more than a Fitbit, but it connects with a chest band, records steps well, reminds me to move around, etc. I guess the only disadvantage is that it's kind of ugly.

I am likely to replace my Inspire HR with one if this deal goes through.

> The Apple Watch Series 3 is available on apple.com for $199.

Which is still a great value.

Real world? I hope you are not ignoring markets like India and China where anyone I see wears a Mi Band or similar.

Apple’s on series 4 for the watch

They're on Series 5. But Series 3 is still a great watch. I'm using a Series 1 and it's still a useful addition to to my life.

How do you say, “That’s a bingo!”

Google isn’t buying Fitbit to improve Fitbit, Google is acquiring a company to gain their experience in the wearables space to compete with Apple and Samsung. I suspect Google thinks AppleWatch is helping them erode the Android market share and/or preventing switchers from moving to Pixel.

The only thing useful that Fitbit has is marketshare (declining), community and maybe patents. From my experience with their products, you do not want their experience in the wearables space ... It is not going to help to compete with Apple and Samsung.

You’re confusing the product with production. Google has plenty of product people that can tell them what to build. FitBit has engineers, hardware designers, production capabilities, suppliers, distribution, as well as the ownership of name ‘Bit’ in the wearables space. Makes perfect sense if Google is trying to make a rapid push into a new market.

>Google isn’t buying Fitbit to improve Fitbit, Google is acquiring a company to gain their experience in the wearables space

I imagine they're also interested simply as a defensive move: if they don't buy fitbit, maybe samsung or apple does.

I’m surprised google can buy anything at this point and not foul up on anti trust... but I guess if there’s a non business they could buy this would be it. But one has to wonder how this played out because there rationale is about as terrible as Apple buying beats — I haven’t seen a Fitbit in ages but I do see Apple watches and on people who probably are carrying around two grand in Apple products when three years ago weren’t even wearing a Casio much less a Fitbit. With this and the hyped supremacy post, one has to wonder if they’re worried abut the pace of things over there in Mountain View..

Fitbit has nothing that Samsung or Apple need (except perhaps some patents for protection for defensive litigation).

They have marketshare

What’s marketshare without profitability?

Isn't that the situation Uber is in. They surely seem to be doing fine.

They were able to get billions from private investors that knew they could pawn it off into the public market. What happens when the public market doesn’t have the stomach to give them more money in a secondary offering and they can’t get loans from banks?

As a Pixel owner, the ear buds and watch options are markedly worse and make me consider switching back.

You may not have read that far down, but the article mentions exactly what you did regarding Fossil:

> Fitbit would not be the first deal that Google would be carrying out in the wearables space. Fossil Group Inc said in January it would sell its intellectual property related to smartwatch technology under development to Google for $40 million. Google’s plans for these assets are not clear.

Thanks. I rem reading a TechCrunch report when I first commented. The hn link, now, points to a Reuters report...

I was really happy with the Fossil hybrid watch that I got for christmas two years ago. The bluetooth worked perfectly which I would never had expected.

Whilst the Fossil app is great the actual bluetooth reliability has gone downhill with the latest updates and I'm wondering whether it is related to talent moving to Google.

I'm thinking of getting a hybrid too. If you were to buy today, would you still go for the Fossil?

I have a Fossil Q Hybrid. I would say buy it, but make sure you can return it after opening the box.

Their bluetooth stack seems rock solid. Especially coming from Garmin where intermittent issues were the norm for me.

I'm only interested in 4 things: counting steps, getting calendar notifications, getting call notifications and getting text notifications.

Steps counting and syncing works without issues, calendar events work without issues. Text and call notifications stopped working for me altogether.

Basically, it either works really well or not at all.

I'd be willing to invest time into this to get it to work, but their support is not much help. It doesn't go beyond checklist and "have you tried re-pairing and enabling all permissions".

It's a shame they sold to Google. They seem to have had some really good talent there and I fear it is going to be wasted at Google.

I like my Fossil Q Explorist well enough. I have the Gen 3 which doesn't have the heart rate monitor or GPS, but on the whole it's a good watch. If you want a smart watch that can do all the smart stuff and last a couple days, I'd look elsewhere. Fossil watches don't have the best battery life. The Gen 4 says like 2 days on standby a day with usage. I get about 6-8 hours tops actually using the watch (looking at notifications quickly and swiping them away, looking at the time, changing songs on my phone), and the charge time is like 3 hours. They suggest it can do sleep tracking, but I've never tested it because I need to charge it every night.

If you don't mind having a watch that is mostly for doing watch things, and then charging it every night - Fossil is nice. But I would look elsewhere if you want a smart watch for daily use doing "smart" things.

BTW Huami is a sub brand of Xiaomi

Is it of lower quality? Why the market differentiation?