I think they're going after correct audience. They're going after people who probably already record these things. For eg I use a heart rate monitor, cycling computer that records GPS coordinates and speed/cadence/altitude changes when I cycle. If this thing had ANT+ connectivity and worked with extra sensors I would buy it to replace my cycling gear.

I can't see anyone spending $200 for this if they're not at least somewhat serious about their exercise. Counting steps and taking my heart rate twice a day is just a gimmick to me.

I'm not serious about exercise but I'll buy one. I work with data and I'm curious about what my measurements look like. i tried other apps but they required too much effort, so the cost/benefit wasn't right for me.

They claim a battery life of 48 hours under "normal usage" (read: no GPS), with a charging time of 1.5 hours. Though if it's supposed to be used as a sleep tracker, I kinda wonder when we're supposed to charge it.

> I kinda wonder when we're supposed to charge it.

I already keep a charger at my work desk to charge my phone, that's when I would charge it and it would not be a hassle in the least.

It would be great if it had wireless charger antenna in the strap and the charging surface would double as mouse pad. Then the right hand would make sense.

If you compare it more closely to a Garmin than to a Fitbit, this is reasonable/comparable battery life. A Garmin GPS watch will track 8-15 hours of activity, if you're lucky ... but without GPS and in pure watch mode will last a couple of weeks.

I'd buy this to replace a Fitbit any day of the week.

Unless you compare it to a Garmin Vivosmart, which does notifications and lasts about 7 days. No GPS, but fully waterproof.

Or if you compare it to the just-announced but not yet available Fitbit Surge, which claims 5 days without GPS.

Two days is not much time in this space.

Much like a fitbit or UP, you charge it when you're doing nothing (physically) in front of your computer.

I wonder if they'll sell a giant charging pad you can slip under your mattress?

I wouldn't buy one, but at least you could have all your devices on you as you sleep!

Buy two, obviously.

The design is rectangular, like Gear Fit, so giving credit for trying something different doesn't seem right.

Also, most pictures on the site have people wearing it on their left hand, so it seems perfectly capable of being on either wrist.

Finally, you're calling it a watch, while this is clearly not what Microsoft intended it to be. So it seems their marketing strategy is pretty on point for what they're trying to sell. The words 'watch', 'time', or 'clock' aren't mentioned anywhere on the page. You should be judging the product for what it is, not what you want it to be.

Rather than being gutsy, I think it looks like it belongs in the Fitbit ecosystem (which maintains 69% of wearables marketshare, according to NPD Group).

It doesn't appear to be hand-specific. Most fitness trackers suggest you should wear on your non-dominant hands, because they give a more accurate step count.

I actually appreciate the fact that its not marketing as an entire smart phone on my wrist. I don't want to browse my photo albums on it or wait 2 seconds for my watch screen to wake up before checking the time. I'm glad its just fitness sensors and simple clock/calender/email/notifications.

This is more or less exactly what I hoped the Apple Watch would be: a sensor platform with simple notifications. Too bad it doesn't look as nice as a Fitbit, though; that screen is way too long.

It looks as thick as my Fitbit Flex; which has no screen. The Fitbit Force which has a screen is a much thicker device in order to accommodate a LED screen that will tell you details.

I think this is an interesting compromise.

>-The whole thing is projected as health device and makes me feel that it's designed for fitness nuts. This is going to severely limit the audience and very bad marketing strategy.

Yeah, designing product to specific target audience didn't work out so well for GoPro I'm sure.

I am a bit shocked there are no color variations shown, this just begs for them. I really do appreciate they didn't hamper themselves by boxing themselves in with a typical watch face.

Now if they could figure out how to monitor blood sugar easily we would be all set. I am curious if with the built in GPS I could use it to monitor my bicycling? I know it can get my heart rate but I am also curious how well that performs while I sweat because I can get soaked on some rides.

Still, the price is great too. Just color it up

I like your reasoning. Worth mentioning the Apple Watch starts at $349.

> feel that it's designed for fitness nuts

This product is quite a leap for Microsoft already. The watch market is young and probably led by fitness nuts.

It's probably a good strategy for Microsoft to nail this market first, learn about the marketing and triggers, secure a position and a revenue, then extend to a larger watch market when it is more structured.

> The watch market is young and probably led by fitness nuts.

Nope, not the feeling I'm getting. Most people around me do not have a smart-watch. I own a pebble which has extremely limited functionality compared to Apple Watch, etc.

The fact that I don't have to watch my phone to get input (read notifications, who's calling, runkeeper data, etc.) + the fact that I can keep my iPhone volume off and still not miss a single call, is a huge plus to me! Having Siri on your wrist could be extremely important for free lancers or generally speaking people who don't have a secretary to call at all times.

> While everyone is trying to make a watch that looks as traditional as possible, Microsoft is thinking radically different for how the future watch should look likes. That's some guts

Not as much guts after Samsung already did it:

https://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/wearable-tech/SM-R3500ZKAX...

>> "While everyone is trying to make a watch that looks as traditional as possible, Microsoft is thinking radically different for how the future watch should look likes. That's some guts."

It will be interesting to see which approach consumers prefer. Techies were going nuts of the Moto 360 because it looked like a real watch and to me it seems the most likely for a normal person to wear.

> crosoft is thinking radically different for how the future watch should look likes

How exactly? It doesn't look very radical to me.

In terms of design, looks pretty much like Microsoft's version of the Samsung Gear Fit...

The images on that page are split pretty much right down the middle for left vs right. I don't think it favors either hand.

I'm assuming the right-hand issue is because it's not meant to replace your watch.

It looks lighter than the Apple watch and that's important to me because I really don't like wearing jewelry. This might convince me to try it out.

I might be wrong about the weight, but it just looks kind of like a Fitbit which is really light (my wife has one).