Ask Slashdot: What Would It Take For You To Buy a Smartwatch?

An anonymous reader writes: I don't wear a watch. I never have. So, to me, the push for smart watches has always been a non-starter. But I was discussing with friends some of the features of Android Wear that Google demonstrated at the I/O conference today, and it got me wondering: what set of features would be required for a smartwatch to become viable? Obviously, this is different for everybody — millions of people wear regular watches even though they could easily pull out their phone and check the time there. Any smartwatch can also tell time, but it has advantages (apps that do other things), and disadvantages (needs charging). Clearly, there are some functions for which it's useful to have an object strapped to your wrist, even if that function could be served by the device in your pocket. Telling time is one, and lots of people use sundry fitness doo-dads to measure exercise. It makes sense to me that checking the weather forecast would fall into this category, and perhaps checking notifications. (Conversely, other functions do not translate at all, like taking photos or playing games.) Thus, two questions: if you already wear a watch, what would it take for a smartwatch to replace it? If you don't wear a watch, what features would motivate you to get one?

Re:Cool solution looking for a problem

[houstonbofh]

This is dead on. I have a rather nice and somewhat expensive watch. Yes, it is nice to be able to check the time riding my motorcycle, or to know how long I have been scuba diving. And yes the new watches can do that. But I have had my watch for 14 years, and it is still a nice and stylish piece of jewelry. I also have a very nice watch I inherited that is significantly older. Performs a time keeping function, but is mostly jewelry. But I would have a hard time investing a few grand in a watch that would be obsolete in 2 years, and would need a new battery (or charging) every night. So for me, the answer is "It ain't happening."